The Westminster Confession describes them as “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” (XIX. 4). In other words, these laws were for regulating the nation of Israel, which was then but no longer is the particular people of God. While there is an undisputed wisdom contained in this civil law it can not be made applicable to any nation today, since there are no biblically sanctioned theocracies now.How can “undisputed wisdom... not be made applicable...”? Wisdom not relevant? Something seems intuitively false about such a postulate. Is Proverbs no longer applicable because there are no theocracies today? How about the Ten Commandments?
The Confession does not teach that the civil law “can not be made applicable to any nation today...” Rather, it teaches the very opposite. It teaches that nations are obliged to implement the civil law as the general equity may require.
The civil codes have lost their context now that salvation is in Christ, in a spiritual kingdom, and not in Israel, a temporal nation.Aside from a false disjunction that would arbitrarily stipulate that a civil code and a spiritual kingdom are somehow mutually exclusive - the Reformed tradition has always maintained that salvation was always spiritual. As Paul reminded his hearers in Romans 9, “...they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but ‘through Isaac your descendants will be named.’ That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.” Romans 9:6-8
Moreover, it would have been interesting to read why the general equity of the civil code may not be a model for all nations just because it was a model for God's covenant nation. Why, in other words, would we think God's wisdom, as it relates to civil government, could lose its applicability upon King Jesus' commissioning the church to disciple all the nations? How could the cross make foolish civil laws that were suitable for a nation that would seek after God’s wisdom and justice? Isn’t the Son of God no less King over the nations than he is Lord over the church?
They are transformed into the judicious application of church discipline.The author must go here because he cannot ignore that General Equity clause of the Divines. So, where does the Confession teach that the penalty for murder under the older economy is now "transformed" into church discipline? The Confession teaches no such thing. In fact, such would be an outright abrogation of the civil law, thereby not preserving its general equity.
If that weren’t enough, WCF 19.4, as it relates to the general equity of the law, calls us to compare Genesis 49:10 with 1 Peter 2:13-14. These verses have nothing to do with church discipline but rather everything to do with civil magistrate.
The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and to him shall the gathering of the people be. Genesis 49:10
Submit yourself to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake; whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that to well. 1 Peter 2:13-14
The 1 Peter 2:13-14 proof-text pertains to punishing evildoers, not ecclesiastical censure. So, both the prima facie reading of 19.4 and the cited footnotes opppose the fanciful claim that the civil code now pertains to church discipline.
Another objection comes from the theonomists, a word that means “law of God.” Theonomists agree that the ceremonial law is exhausted, but insist on the direct application of the civil law. They say that God obliges all nations to live according to the laws established for Old Testament Israel. Such people sincerely advocate, therefore, the stoning of sexual sinners and the taking of an eye for an eye.The author will have a difficult time citing a single theonomist who advocates stoning, or that “an eye for an eye" is law (as opposed to a biblical principle that teaches just penalty for crimes).
Regarding “sexual sinners,” the author would have us believe that theonomy doesn’t distinguish between seduction and rape, an adulterous thought and beasteality. Which are crimes and what should be the penalties? How would we justify our answers? At the very least, the antinomian will have a difficult time arguing for or against any particular penalty.
The law is not over us, to condemn us, but under our feet, to be a guide for our path. In saying that, it is the moral law, as reflected in the Ten Commandments, to which I refer, which we have the pleasure of obeying to the glory of God and out of gratitude for our salvation.That we might take pleasure in obeying God’s law with gratitude does not imply that the moral law is somehow “under our feet” merely to guide us. At the very least, that’s to ignore two of the three uses of the moral law. The demands of the law reveal God’s holiness and condemn us daily. It’s the condemning aspect of the moral law that drives the believer to Christ. That is not a one time use of the law but a daily discipline.
The idea that the general equity of the civil law is now excommunication is both novel and untenable. It is an outright avoidance of the plain theology of the Divines. Also, the Larger Catechism couldn’t be more theonomic.
ReplyDeleteYes, it’s a misrepresentation of the Westminster standards.
DeleteThe arbitrariness and inconsistency of antinomian thought might only be surpassed by the caricatures and fallacies antinomians employ. It’s very sad that more careful consideration isn’t given to these matters.
It is promulgated and popularized by the 2K crowd.
Delete“At the very least, if we are to govern ourselves strictly by the light of nature apart from special revelation, wouldn't the non-theonomic Christian be constrained to argue that all sins deserve death, since all men know by nature that the just wages for all sins is eternal destruction? Since the light of nature argument fails the non-theonomist, shouldn't he then be willing to concede that the penalties of the civil case laws of the OT are at least permissible today, even if they were no longer required? Or is it that we may only legislate laws that do not resemble those given to ancient Israel? What is it to be non-theonomic after all?” Reformed Apologist
ReplyDeleteI recognize the sentiment but natural law, which too is God’s law, is neither offered or denied as a suitable substitute.
DeleteI was quoting you. Don’t you deny that natural law is a suitable substitute for the written civil law?
ReplyDeleteYes.
ReplyDeleteI thought you may have been quoting me on the deficiencies of natural law, thinking somehow it would lend firepower against Rick Phillips’ position. In my response to you, I was merely pointing out that Rick Phillips neither advocated nor denied a natural law surrogate. He may very well think along those lines, in which case my quote would be relevant, but as I recall, his treatment of the subject was superficial, so I wasn’t able to discern much more than his misunderstanding of theonomy and WCF 19.4.
Great post! One thing, though:
ReplyDelete> "The author will have a difficult time citing a single theonomist who advocates stoning"
I thought most theonomists (including myself) entertain lapidation as a possible means of capital punishment? Gary North even recommended it as the ideal.
Great response!
ReplyDeleteOne quibble.
You write, "The author will have a difficult time citing a single theonomist who advocates stoning . . ."
Is it not true, however, that several prominent theonomists ─ including Gary North ─ advocate for the use of lapidation?
Not sure about North. The question of equity typically pertains to the question of whether the penalty should be public and whether citizens ought to participate.
ReplyDelete