LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

to reclaim his rightful domain; it is the rod that brooks no compromise. About this, nineteenth century Covenanter pastor William Symington writes:

Laws are essential to dominion; it cannot exist long without them; and there can be no administration where they are entirely wanting. The Messiah is not without these; the Scriptures are the law of the Lord—a code at once righteous, suitable, extensive, and efficacious.43

Therefore, the “Law of Christ” (1 Cor 9:21;44 Gal 6:2) bears the same content as the Law of God. As the Law of God includes those laws given through Moses, so also does the Law of Christ. They differ only in name. The law of God’s kingdom can now bear the name of the King through whom God mediates his rule. Consequently, in regards to moral teaching, the Law of Christ is the Law of Moses.

      Critique of Latent Version

The latent form of Antinomianism fares little better. First, it reasons poorly to separate the civil laws from the moral law. Walter C. Kaiser Jr. gives a number of passages to show that the moral aspects of the law take priority over the ceremonial and civil aspects.45 However, these passages only show so with regard to the ceremonial laws. In 1 Samuel 15:22–23, for instance, moral laws are set over burnt offerings, sacrifices, and the fat of rams. In Isaiah 1:11–17, moral laws are set against sacrifices; burnt offerings of rams; the fat of cattle; offering the blood of bulls, lambs, goats; incense; and new moon and Sabbath feasts. These passages say nothing of civil ordinances, but only ceremonial ones. The same is true of the other passages that Kaiser cites (Jer 7:21–23; Mic 6:8; Ps 51:16–17).46 And Murray is certain that the death penalty continues to exist for murder, while agnostic about its applicability to other crimes,47 but then acknowledges the New Testament’s teaching that crimes (plural!) merit the death penalty.48

Moreover, Latent Antinomianism arbitrarily sets apart the civil laws from the moral law. Theologians commonly categorize the laws of the Old Testament into moral, ceremonial, and civil categories. But why are the civil laws singled out from the moral laws? Why are never the familial laws, or economic laws, or ecclesiastical laws singled out? Why is there never a category scheme of moral, ceremonial, and familial? Because theologians recognize the Mosaic familial laws as simply those moral laws applicable to the family. They should recognize the same concerning the civil laws; they are those moral laws applicable to the civil realm. And so if the civil laws are part of the moral law, they are based on the eternal character of God and therefore continue to obligate in the New Covenant.49

Second, the New Testament expressly endorses the civil laws of Moses. Not only are they generally endorsed by Jesus’ and Paul’s comments (Matt 5:16–20; 2 Tim 3:16–17), but the New Testament particularly endorses them as well. Writing to Timothy, Paul emphasizes the political use of the Law (1 Tim 1:8–10). Certain laws of God, he says, are “not made for a righteous person” (i.e., the law-abiding citizen), but are for restraining the “lawless and insubordinate” persons in society. He gives some examples of the kinds of behavior God’s Law considers criminal: killing parents, murder, prostitution or adultery or bestiality, homosexuality, kidnapping, and lying and perjury.50 This political use of the Law, Paul assures us, is a “good” and “lawful” use (v. 8). For every penalty given by Moses, the writer to the Hebrews informs us, is “a just penalty” (Heb 2:2, NASB)—they are expressions of God’s moral stand-ards of justice. So the civil penalty prescribed, say, for homosexuality (Lev 20:13) is an ordinance of perfect justice, and for this reason Paul recognizes homosexuality as worthy of civil punishment (Rom 1:32).51 Moreover, in Matthew 15:3–6, Jesus rebukes the Pharisees and scribes for allowing their traditions to override the civil punishments listed in the Pentateuch (Exod 21:17; Lev 20:9). And lastly, when Paul stands before the tribunal of Governor Festus, he recognizes crimes (plural) that are deserving of death (Acts 25:8–11)—crimes involving capital offenses according to Jewish laws (Acts 23:29; 24:6)—a recognition he certainly would not have made for unjust penal laws.

So contrary to the claims of Latent Antinomianism, the civil punishments listed in God’s Law have not terminated. As criminal behavior has not ceased in the New Covenant era, God has not ended his ordained means of dealing with crime. Indeed, Romans 12:19—13:4 teaches us that civil rulers are the servants of God, who do “not bear the sword in vain” (13:4) but have been appointed to execute his wrath upon evil doers; and God by no means leaves it up to man to determine what his wrath might be. Additionally, the requirement of penal precision (Prov 17:15; Deut 17:20) makes adhering to God’s instructions absolutely necessary. Calvin’s words are right on target: “And this is worthy of observation, that those who are armed with the sword, must not go out of the way on either side one tittle, but faithfully execute whatever God prescribes.”52 All of Scripture, even God’s civil penalties, is useful for ethical instruction (2 Tim 3:16–17). Throwing out that portion of Scripture given to instruct us in the punishment of criminals is done to our own peril, as the evening news and overcrowded jails daily declare. The ancient sage must have seen our day when he wrote: “Where there is no revelation [of God], the people cast off restraint” (Prov 29:18).

      Antinomianism, we have seen, falls to the ground. Not only does it allow atrocious acts, but its attempts at invalidating Old Testament laws spring from a misunderstanding of both the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ. Furthermore, its attempt to keep some laws but throw out others fails due to faulty reasoning and to an oversight of New Testament teaching. All Scripture is inspired of God, making its every word useful for ethical instruction (Matt 4:4; 2 Tim 3:16–17); every jot and tittle of Moses comes into the New Covenant (Matt 5:18) unless Christ says otherwise. Like the saints of old, we declare God’s Law liberating (Jas 1:25; 2:12; cf. Ps 119:45) and life-giving (Matt 19:17; cf. Deut 4:1). The Christian’s attitude should be that of the psalmist: “Oh, how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day” (Ps 119:97). We do not manifest maturity by ignoring the wisdom given to us by Omniscience. On the contrary, turning aside from any of God’s commandments is to praise the wicked (Prov 28:4) and “to go after other gods to serve them” (Deut 28:14). If we heed our Lord’s testimonies, we shall understand more than all of our teachers (Ps 119:99). Dear Christian, “keeping the commandments of God is what matters” (1 Cor 7:19), “for this is man’s all” (Eccl 12:13).

      Natural Law

      Though Antinomianism seeks to ignore portions of God’s Word, we now encounter a philosophy that makes all of God’s Word unnecessary for ethical direction. Seeking an alternate route for moral guidance, Natural Law is defined as

the moral order inscribed in the world and especially in human nature, an order that is known to all people through their natural faculties (especially reason and/or conscience) even apart from supernatural divine revelation that binds morally the whole of the human race.53

      As critics have shown, though, the Natural Law ethic commits the naturalistic fallacy, erroneously moving from what is the case in nature to what morally ought to be the case. But what gives nature this kind of moral authority? Without authority, obligation cannot exist.

Some advocates of nature, however, appeal to the Bible and to the God of the Bible for this natural order’s authority. J. Budziszewski, for example, says that “the Bible itself testifies to the reality of the natural law,”54 and that Natural Law derives its “authority from God alone.”55

Скачать книгу