The Myth of "The Judicial Law"

Where "Christian Reconstructionists" Went Wrong

This is a wholesale revision of Reformed Social Theory. Here is an outline of this webpage.

1. Law in the Westminster Larger Catechism
2. "Civil Law" in Chapter 19 of the Westminster Confession
3. The Myth of "Judicial Law"
4. The Case for Pacifism
   1. Biblical Mandate for Peace
   2. Rushdoony on Peace vs. Jihad
   3. More of Biblical Mandate for Peace
   4. Exodus 22: An exception?
   5. Civilization, not Statism
5. "Judicial Laws" (on War and "Capital Punishment") were "Ceremonial" not "Civil"
   1. Blood in the Judicial Law
   2. Christian Reconstructionists on War
      1. Gary North: Jericho as Whole Burnt Offering
      2. James B. Jordan: Hormah
      3. There is no such thing as "judicial law" in the Bible.
6. "The State" (and it's "civil law") is idolatry
   1. The Entire Concept of "The State" is a product of "Natural Law," Not Biblical Law
   2. The State was imported into Israel from Rebels (1 Samuel 8)
   3. "Civil Law" was imported into Christianity from Greco-Roman Humanism: Jerusalem vs. Athens
   4. Rushdoony: Reformers Committed Blasphemy by Doing So
   5. "Natural Law" = Pagan Law
   6. Gary North: Origin of "Natural Law"
   7. John M. Frame: Natural Law Insufficient to Govern Society
   8. Gary North: Natural Law Theory
   9. Gary North: Natural Law Theory: Ethical Dualism
   10. "Classical" Christian Education is Pagan
   11. Gary DeMar on Natural Law

You might get the impression talking to some "Christian Reconstructionists" that the world's problems could be solved if we could just implement "the judicial laws" of the Bible. This means executing all the trouble-makers in the world, rather than waiting for God to convert them by the preaching of the Word.

You might also get the impression that "the judicial law" occupies about 1/3 of all of God's Law (consisting of "Moral Law," "ceremonial law" and "civil law" or "judicial law").

The problem originates in chapter 19 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, and ultimately traces back to medieval scholastics, who imported Roman Law into Christendom from Athens and Rome.

But first, let's praise the Larger Catechism.

The Westminster Larger Catechism is much better than chapter 19 of the Confession of Faith. It is much more "Theonomic"-sounding. (It isn't really, if it is interpreted in terms of chapter 19 of the Confession, but it sounds pretty good.)

Jews say there are 613 commandments. Here is a good list:

• Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)

I think it's worth an evening to read them all, and to see how that website has them classified.

There are several categories of those laws which the Westminster Standards would likely call "ceremonial."

• Signs and Symbols (5 commandments)
• Times and Seasons (37 commandments)
• Dietary Laws (27 commandments, but see this)
• The Sabbatical and Jubilee Years (17 commandments)
• Punishment and Restitution (24 commandments) -- This category is problematic. For example, it contains Deuteronomy 21:4 (#296), which commands shedding the blood of a heifer in cases of unsolved homicide. No Christian believes this commandment is to be obeyed literally, but can only be obeyed through the blood of Christ. More on this law below.
• The Firstborn (4 commandments -- Christ is the first born)
• Kohanim and Levites (30 commandments) -- all believers are priests (1 Peter 2:9; Rev. 1:6; 5:10)
• T'rumah, Tithes and Taxes (24 commandments, many of which have to do with the Kohanim and Levites, including, I would argue, the so-called "head tax" of Exodus 30.)
• The Temple, the Sanctuary and Sacred Objects (30 commandments)
• Sacrifices and Offerings (101 commandments)
• Ritual Purity and Impurity (16 commandments)
• Lepers and Leprosy (4 commandments)
• The King (7 commandments) -- Jesus is the only King we are allowed to have.
• Nazarites (10 commandments)
• Wars (16 commandments) -- I would argue that
  • (1) all wars were priestly, rather than civil, events, and are therefore "ceremonial laws," and
  • (2) we are to beat our swords into plowshares and not prosecute wars any more (Isaiah 2; Micah 4)

This means 352 out of the 613 commandments are "ceremonial." The remainder 261, are "moral" or "judicial" laws.

I have arranged the 613 commandments in Biblical order here:

• 613 Commandments in Biblical Order

Notice that the three categories are often mixed together. There certainly is not a stand-alone "judicial code" as there is in modern law.

But Are There Only 613 Commandments? <-- That link shows that the Westminster  Larger Catechism has at least 430 Commandments, and this does not include the "ceremonial law," because those laws can no longer be followed as written, but must be obeyed through Christ, "the Lamb of God" (John 1:29). Those 430 commandments would be either "moral laws" or "judicial laws."

Chapter 19 of the Westminster Confession says that the "sundry judicial laws . . .  expired together with the State of" Israel." Although the Larger Catechism cites numerous "judicial laws" as though they were still obligatory, Rushdoony says that Chapter 19 of the Confession makes "nonsense" of these citations, since "The main function of this re-introduction of the Mosaic law is to buttress the power of the state with the death penalty, the duty of obedience, and the like," not in a Theonomic manner, but in a statist manner following the legal philosophy of Greco-Roman law.

None Dare Call it Blasphemy: The Reformers and Natural Law

• Introduction 
• August Lang: A Reformed Look at the Reformers 
• Rushdoony: A Theonomist Looks at the Reformers 
• Benjamin Nelson: Usury, Natural Law, and the Reformers 
• Benjamin Nelson Describes the Reformers' War on Biblical Law

Westminster and Fascism

Rushdoony's critique is based on Van Til's "Theonomy-Autonomy" dichotomy, and Van Til's critique of "natural law." Background on "natural law" is essential to understand why non-Theonomic Reformers and Puritans were unBiblical.

Here is the argument that there is no such thing as "judicial law" or "civil law" in Scripture -- only "moral law." This argument is symbiotic with the claim that the State was the invention of rebellious gentiles, not something commanded by God to Israel. If God gave no "civil magistrate," it stands to reason God gave no "civil law."

The False Distinction Between "Moral Law" and "Judicial Law"

There is no such thing as "judicial law" in the Bible.

So there would be six categories of law:

• civil laws
  • some of which are "moral" (abiding)
  • some of which are "redemptive" ("ceremonial" no longer abiding)
• ecclesiastical law
  • some of which are "moral" (abiding)
  • some of which are "redemptive" ("ceremonial" no longer abiding)
• familial laws
  • some of which are "moral" (abiding)
  • some of which are "redemptive" ("ceremonial" no longer abiding)

Everyone agrees that "the ceremonial law" or "redemptive law" can be fulfilled only in Christ. The requirement to bring a lamb to the temple can be obeyed only by faith in Jesus, "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29).

The problem is with the "judicial" or "civil" category.

There was no "civil government" in Israel until 1 Samuel 8, which expressly declares that the desire for a "civil" government is a rejection of God, who alone should be our King, Lawgiver, and Judge (Isaiah 33:22).

Since there was no "civil government," Moses gave no "civil law" or "judicial law." When Moses predicted that Israel would apostatize and ask for a king like the pagans (Deuteronomy 17), he did not legitimize their apostasy by handing down a corpus of "civil law." He gave a few commands to the king which would not be obeyed and would only serve to confirm the depth of Israel's rejection of God as King. God had His purposes for allowing this apostasy. Some kings, like David, served as a type of the coming Messiah. But it was not one of God's purposes to create a permanent "civil service" structure.

It is helpful to incorporate North's insights in his distinction between three kinds of religion (in Moses and Pharaoh):

• Dominion Religion
• Power Religion
• Escapist Religion

In the Bible, the original social structure is Patriarchy: the Family. To the Family was given the command to "exercise dominion" (Genesis 1:26-28). When one "nuclear family" ("patria") engages in commerce with another "nuclear family," a market emerges: "agora." We might speak of this as "patriagora" — family + market

Franz Oppenheimer, in his book The State: Its History and Development Viewed Sociologically, distinguishes between "Economic Man" and "Political Man."

• "Economic Man" takes natural resources and transforms them into something more useful to human beings, and under a division of labor, trades most or all of what he produces for the fruit of the labor of others. Both producers in such a voluntary trade are better off than they were before the trade.
• "Political Man," on the other hand, uses force to seize the wealth produced by "Economic Man."

These categories match North's religions:

• "Economic Man" = Dominion Man = "Dominion Religion"
• "Political Man" = "Power Religion"

"Escapist Religion" emerges when "economic man" seeks to evade the responsibilities of dominion and God's Law, and he retreats into "Escapist Religion."
Escapist Man is easily seduced by the claims of "Political Man" that the "civil government" created by "Political Man" will take care of "Escapist Man."

In Luke 22:25 Jesus said to His disciples, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors." According to Thayer's Greek Dictionary, "benefactor" is a

title of honour, conferred on such as had done their country service, and upon princes, equivalent to Soter, Pater Patriae.

"Pater Patriae" means "father of his country." Soter is the Greek word for "Savior."

Luke 2:11
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Soter [σωτὴρ], which is Christ the Lord.

"We're from the government. We're here to help"
is equivalent to
"We're from the government. We're here to save."

"Escapist Man" happily accepts this offer.

In practice, Luke 22:25 should read: "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called Saviors." This is the frosting on the cake of our "three branches of government" which parallel Isaiah 33:22 :

Christians have accepted the categories of "the kings of the gentiles" -- the Emperors, Pharaohs, and Führers -- operating under "natural law" -- rather than the categories of the Bible. In the Bible there is only "moral law" and "ceremonial law."

To return to Deuteronomy 17/1 Samuel 8, it was not God's purpose to create a permanent "civil government" in Israel. The coming Messiah, Jesus the King, was "the Last Adam" who would destroy all kings [pdf] (1 Corinthians 15), end "power religion" (and escapist religion) and restore man to his original Edenic dominion mandate.

“Holy War” as an Excuse for Not Following Jesus

At this point we set forth the case for "pacifism," and then show that Old Testament verses describing "holy war" were never intended to be used after the Cross to justify war. Our conclusion:

"Holy War" was a priestly act and part of the "ceremonial law," not the "moral law."

The Case for Pacifism

The word "pacifism" comes from the Latin word for "peace" -- pax (genitive pacis). It does not come from the word "passive." Indeed, Biblical pacifists are active in overcoming violence, but they overcome evil with good (Romans 12:14-21). The pacifist believes that killing is evil. The pacifist is active in preventing killing, but when push comes to shove, it is better to be killed than to kill. This was the example and teaching of Jesus.

"Everybody knows" that Jesus commanded His disciples to be "pacifists." He commands us to

1. Love our enemies (Matthew 5:44)
2. Resist not evil (Matthew 5:39)
3. Pay your taxes; don't take up arms against the Red Coats (Matthew 22:21).
4. Turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39)
5. Go the second mile (Matthew 5:41). If you take this verse seriously, it means "national defense" is a sin.
6. Christians should believe that it is always sinful to kill a human being ("Thou shalt not kill." Mark 10:19, quoting Exodus 20:13). Better to be killed than to kill. Better Red than dead. (Link goes to an exposition of the 6th Commandment by the Westminster Larger Catechism, which in many ways is a pacifist manifesto.)
7. In short, even if we get called "pacifists," we will take Jesus seriously and follow Him. [details]

People who want to be respected by Presidents, Generals, Political Science Professors, and Defense Industry CEOs claim Jesus was only talking about our "personal" or "spiritual" side, but His commandments are not to be followed by those who are in positions of public responsibility. As a result, since I was born, the government of the United States has killed, crippled, or made homeless TENS of MILLIONS of innocent non-combatant civilians around the world. The prophets of the Old Testament would say that "The United States" is the modern parallel to Babylon or Assyria of old. The U.S. is the enemy of God and humanity.

Believing that "a friend of the world is the enemy of God" (James 4:4), I don't care if I'm respected by the “military-industrial-congressional” complex (as Dwight Eisenhower at one point called it),

A logically consistent Christian pacifist is also an anarchist, for two reasons: first, a pacifist is against violence, and "the State" is institutionalized, systematic violence; second, Jesus prohibits His followers from being "archists" An "archist" is one who believes he has a right to impose his own will on others. Chiefly, the "archist" imposes his will on others through the machinery of "the State," which includes fines, prisons, torture, executions, armed invasions, and terrorism. The Christian, on the contrary, believes it is always sinful to impose your own will on others by initiating force or threatening violence. (We are to be servants, not "archists." Mark 10:42-45.) I know, that sounds "weird." "Anarchism?"

During the 20th century alone (1900-1999) Non-pacifists and archists using the machinery of "the State"

• murdered hundreds of millions of people,

• infringed on God-endowed unalienable rights and enslaved billions of people under "socialism" and "communism," and

• destroyed or confiscated trillions of dollars worth of private property

But they tell us that if pacifists have their way, and all the men in business suits and military uniforms were to beat their "swords into plowshares" and get a real job, that "evil will take over." But if all the murderers, enslavers, and thieves who run "governments" were to start plowing fields, who are these "evil" people who will "take over the world?" Pathetic meth addicts breaking into your garage to fence your weed-whacker for a couple of dollars of drug money? Really?

"Evil" has already "taken over" the world. It's called "the government."

"Common criminals" will never "take over" the world. The world is ruled by the rich (Proverbs 22:7). The world is ruled by Harvard-educated warmongers.

What are the necessary conditions for us to beat "swords into plowshares" (Miach 4:1-5)? At least a plurality -- if not a majority -- of voters would have to become pacifist/anarchists to vote all the politicians and generals out of office. They would most likely come to this point as a result of conversion to Christian pacifism -- not by becoming atheists, criminals, and meth-heads. The typical cartoon "anarchist" character is a caped, bearded, bomb-throwing assassin. The Christian anarchist is a pacifist who takes personal responsibility to become the servant of others. In America, we would need 200 million church-going Christians to repudiate their support for the MIC and stop their cheerleading for war. At this point, who is going to sign up to help "evil take over?" If Germans had been Christian pacifists, who would have run the trains that took the Jews to the concentration camps? Who would have run the concentration camps? Who would have gone door-to-door rounding up Jews? Hitler could not have done it himself. He needed "sensible," "practical," "realistic" Lutherans who didn't buy into all this "Christian pacifist" nonsense. Christians who limited Jesus to their "personal," "non-public" lives.

Christian Theocracy: The Only Path to Liberty -- Does Anarchy Lead to Chaos?

Take Jesus Seriously

If you take Jesus seriously, the unbelieving world (and most church-goers) will say you're "unrealistic," "impractical," and "utopian." They will call you a "pacifist" and an "anarchist." 

• DominionPacifism.com
• TheonomicPacifism.com
• The Christian Case Against "National Defense"
• more links
• verses on peace

The Westminster Larger Catechism elaborates on the implications of the Sixth Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." It is pretty much a pacifist manifesto. But the Westminster Divines included three excuses for not being a pacifist, and these three exceptions to the rule against killing virtually swallow up the entire rule:

• capital punishment
• war
• self-defense

We will cover capital punishment and war in a minute.

When God says "Thou shalt not kill," it is clear that God abhors killing. Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorroah? Most Christians know the Biblical answer. Or think they do. Why did God destroy the world at the time of Noah? The Bible says it was because "great men" were committing "violence" (Genesis 6). Who does most of the killing in the world? "The State" -- rich and powerful people -- through war and capital punishment (or other "police actions," like those in Korea and Vietnam). Very few people are killed in "self-defense," and most of those killings are by non-pacifist private citizens who are imitators of state action. "If the government can do it, so can I." They graduated from government-run "public" schools.

No pacifist I've ever met is opposed to defending oneself against violence. If you have a shield, and some evil man is approaching you with a sword, no pacifist says you cannot use your shield to protect yourself against his sword. But if he gets tired of hitting his sword on your shield and says, "I need to take a break," you cannot bash his skull open with your shield while he sleeps, even though that would prevent him from resuming his attack after his nap. You can defend yourself by running away. "Thou shalt not kill."

What is called "self-defense" is almost always pure vengeance, and vengeance is prohibited by Scripture.

Some will say that Old Testament verses on "Holy War" show that "self-defense" and "national defense" are permitted in our day.

I believe the Bible should be used as a blueprint for all political policies. I don't believe it should be mis-used, however.

Theonomist Greg Bahnsen wrote:

5. We should presume that Old Testament standing laws²⁶ continue to be morally binding in the New Testament, unless they are rescinded or modified by further revelation.

26. Standing law" is used here for policy directives applicable over time to classes of individuals (e.g., do not kill; children, obey your parents; merchants, have equal measures; magistrates, execute rapists), in contrast to particular directions for an individual (e.g., the order for Samuel to anoint David at a particular time and place) or positive commands for distinct incidents (e.g., God's order for Israel to exterminate certain Canaanite tribes at a certain point in history).

Exterminating Canaanites was not a "standing law."

These commands were also not faithfully executed by Israel. As a result of their sins, they had continuing battles, none of which constitute "standing laws" or any kind of example for today's warfare.

Further, these wars were not "military" in the modern secular sense. They were religious and priestly. They were part of the "ceremonial law."

Bible scholars often divide Old Testament laws into three categories:
      • "Moral,"
      • "ceremonial," and
      • "civil" (or "judicial").
The category of "judicial law" presupposes that God commanded mankind to form empires or "states." This is a mistaken assumption. When we hear the phrase "separation of church and state" we understand a priestly or religious institution ("church") and a "secular" institution of power and violence ("state"). Go through the Bible from cover to cover. You will never hear God say to man, "Form a State." The formation of "the State" was and is an act of rebellion against God's commandments against murder, theft, and vengeance. "The State" does what we all know is sinful if it were to be done in our families, businesses, churches, and charities.

There really is no "judicial law," as we show below. Only "moral" and "ceremonial" law.

And the "ceremonial law" pointed to the work of Christ, and must not be followed as a blueprint today.

Old Testament wars were "ceremonial," not "judicial," and not part of the abiding "moral law."

The Old Testament "ceremonial law" is priestly law. It is generally about cleansing from sin, or making "atonement" for sin. And this generally involves the shedding of blood. The "ceremonial law" was fulfilled by Christ when He shed His blood on the Cross. In our day, no other blood has any power to atone for sins.

In the Old Covenant, before Christ shed His blood, God required the shedding of blood of both man and beast to atone for sins. Some sins required more than the shedding of the blood of a dove or lamb. They required the shedding of the blood of the perpetrator himself. Today we call these ritual acts of bloodshed “capital punishment,” or in the case of entire nations in the Promised Land, "holy war." Old Testament wars were acts of cleansing or atonement on a national scale.

Neither “capital punishment” or "holy war" are required or even permitted under the New Covenant. Let's look first at "capital punishment." [go to "holy war"]

Murder, Blood, Atonement, and "Civil Government"

Suppose I was born on the same day as your son, and your son and I are both 22 years old.

In a fit of anger, I murder your son.

You cite Genesis 9:4-6 for the proposition that my blood should be shed:

Genesis 9:4-6 -- Blood must be shed

But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. ⁵ Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man. ⁶ Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man.

But suppose you don't know that I was the one who murdered your son. Nobody knows this. It's an "unsolved homicide." Should you urge your civil government -- and its Levitical priests -- to follow Deuteronomy 21:1-9?

Deuteronomy 21:1-9 -- Blood must be shed in the case of an Unsolved Homicide

⁵And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near; for them the LORD thy God hath chosen to minister unto Him, and to bless in the Name of the LORD; and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be tried: ⁴And the elders of that city shall bring down a heifer unto a rough valley, and shall strike off the heifer's neck there in the valley: ⁷Then they shall answer and say, “Our hands have not shed this blood, nor have our eyes seen it. ⁸ Provide atonement, O LORD, for Your people Israel, whom You have redeemed, and do not lay innocent blood to the charge of Your people Israel.” And atonement shall be provided on their behalf for the blood. ⁹ So you shall put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you when you do what is right in the sight of the LORD.

To my knowledge, no Christian advocates the literal observance of this law. Here's why.

Suppose I confess to the murder, and can supply evidence to back up my confession.

Should Numbers 35:33 be followed?

Numbers 35:33 -- Blood must be shed in cases of a Solved Homicide

³³ So you shall not pollute the land where you are; for blood defiles the land, and no atonement can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it.

Should my blood be shed?

Who should shed my blood?

You?

You and your neighbors?

People calling themselves "the civil government?"

Since I provided the evidence against myself, and testified against myself, should I shed my own blood?

What if people calling themselves "the civil government" refuse to prosecute me, or a jury of my peers refuses to convict me, but I believe my blood needs to be shed to cleanse the land (Hebrew, כָּפַר kaphar, make atonement, Strong's #3722) Should I shed my own blood? Should the victim's family shed my blood?

What if you believe that only the blood of Jesus can cleanse the land of the shedding of innocent blood (which I shed).

Should people calling themselves "the civil government" threaten to hurt you if you don't pay (be taxed) for "executioners" to shed my blood, even if you don't want my blood shed?

Suppose I murder your son and I am Jeff Bezos, the wealthiest man in the world, and I promise to become your slave for life, and pay you $100 million a year for the rest of my life out of the money I earn at Amazon.com. Suppose you want the proceeds of my forced labor more than my shed blood? Should people calling themselves "the civil government" threaten to hurt you if you don't pay (be taxed) for "executioners" to shed my blood, even if you don't want my blood shed?

These are the questions every society must answer:

• What should be done in response to a crime?
• Who should do it?
• Who should forcibly be prevented from doing it?
• Who should pay for it to be done?
• Who should be forced to pay for it?
• Who gets to do the forcing?
• Does either party (perpetrator or victim's heirs) or a third party have the moral authority to commit violence against another party who gives a different answer to these questions?
  • If you don't want your son's murderer's blood shed, can someone else shed the murderer's blood anyway?
  • Can someone else force you to pay for the shedding of your son's murderer's blood if you don't want his blood shed?
  • If you do want your son's murderer's blood shed, because you believe God requires the shedding of blood, can someone else (claiming a "monopoly of justice") hurt you if you personally cause the murderer's blood to be shed without that monopolist party's permission?
  • Can you force a third party to pay for the shedding of your son's murderer's blood if you want blood to be shed but that third party does not want blood to be shed?
  • Can I be forced to pay for the shedding of your son's murderer's blood if neither you as the victim's father nor I want blood to be shed?
  • Which verse of Scripture supports your answer?

The Book of Hebrews says that the only blood which is efficacious in the eyes of God is the blood of Jesus. Anyone attempting to obey Biblical Laws such as Deuteronomy 21 and Numbers 35 by killing either an animal or a human being is not obeying those laws, but is in fact disobeying the Covenant and rejecting Jesus as the Christ and as "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." John 1:29

Hebrews 9

⁷ But into the second part the high priest went alone once a year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the people‘s sins committed in ignorance; ⁸ the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing. ⁹ It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience— ¹⁰ concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation [definitively ended, AD 70 with the destruction of the earthly Jerusalem temple].

¹¹ But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. ¹² Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. ¹³ For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, ¹⁴ how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? ¹⁵ And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

¹⁶ For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. ¹⁷ For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives. ¹⁸ Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood . ¹⁹ For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, ²⁰ saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you.” ²¹ Then likewise he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. ²² And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.

²³ Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. ²⁴ For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; ²⁵ not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another— ²⁶ He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. ²⁷ And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, ²⁸ so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

10 For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. ² For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. ³ But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. ⁴ For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.

For further reading:

A Theonomic Argument Against Capital Punishment

No war in the last 2,000 years has been a "just war" or justified by Old Testament Scriptures.

Christians who justify modern secular militarism and imperialism with Old Testament "holy wars" also use Romans 13 as an excuse for war in our day. This too is a mistake.

For Further Reading:
www.GodandtheDeathPenalty.com
God Ordains Evil
Is War Ever "Just?"

This thesis is a linchpin.
If true, it destroys both war and capital punishment as legitimate functions of "the State," and effectively destroys the necessity or even legitimacy of "the State."
If false, it is still true that all legitimate social functions (which would include vengeance, war, and capital punishment if this thesis is false) can be carried out by the Family (patriarchy) in a Freed Market rather than the State (polis).

What follows are excerpts from leading "Christian Reconstructionists" showing that "holy war" was priestly and religious ("ceremonial"), not secular/civil.

Gary North,
Inheritance and Dominion
An Economic Commentary on Deuteronomy

Chapter 46

LIMITS TO EMPIRE

The Whole Burnt Offering and Disinheritance

The Israelites were told to show no mercy to the nations inside Canaan's boundaries (Deut. 7:16). These nations had practiced such great evil that they had become abominations in the sight of God. "For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee" (Deut. 18:12). The language of Deuteronomy 20:10-18 indicates that every living thing inside the boundaries of Canaan was to be killed: "thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth." With respect to the first city to fall, Jericho, this law applied literally (Josh. 6:15-21). But it did not apply literally to the other cities of Canaan. After the destruction of Jericho, the first city inside Canaan to be defeated, cattle became lawful spoils for the Israelites. "And thou shalt do to Ai and her king as thou didst unto Jericho and her king: only the spoil thereof, and the cattle thereof, shall ye take for a prey unto yourselves: lay thee an ambush for the city behind it" (Josh. 8:2). The word "breatheth" did not apply to Canaan's cattle; it applied only to the human population. "And all the spoil of these cities, and the cattle, the children of Israel took for a prey unto themselves; but every man they smote with the edge of the sword, until they had destroyed them, neither left they any to breathe" (Josh. 11:14).

Jericho was the representative example of God's total wrath against covenant-breakers who follow their religious presuppositions to their ultimate conclusion: death.⁽³⁾ Jericho came under God's total ban: hormah.⁽⁴⁾ This was the equivalent of a whole burnt offering: almost all of it had to be consumed by fire. In the whole burnt offering, all of the beast was consumed on the altar (Lev. 1:9, 13), except for the skin, which went to the officiating priest (Lev. 7:8). Similarly, all of Jericho was burnt except for the precious metals, which went to the tabernacle as firstfruits (Josh. 6:24).⁽⁵⁾ Nevertheless, because God wanted His people to reap the inheritance of the Canaanites, He allowed them to confiscate the cattle and precious goods of the other conquered Canaanite cities. This illustrated another important biblical principle of inheritance: "A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children's children: and the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just" (Prov. 13:22). Canaan's capital, except in Jericho, was part of Israel's lawful inheritance. The Canaanites had accumulated wealth; the Israelites were to inherit all of it. This comprehensive inheritance was to become a model of God's total victory at the end of history. Their failure to exterminate the Canaanites, placing some of them under tribute instead (Josh. 16:10; 17:13), eventually led to the apostasy of Israel and the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities, just as Moses prophesied in this passage (vv. 17-18; cf. 7:1-5; 12:30-31).

The annihilation of every living soul in Canaan was mandatory. "And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them: neither shalt thou serve their gods; for that will be a snare unto thee" (Deut. 7:16). This was a model of God's final judgment. But it was a model in the same way that Jericho was a model: a one-time event. Jericho was to be totally destroyed, including the animals; this was not true of the other cities of Canaan. Similarly, the Canaanites were to be totally annihilated; this was not true of residents of cities outside Canaan. In this sense, Jericho was to Canaan what Canaan was to cities outside the land: a down payment ("earnest") on God's final judgment -- final disinheritance -- at the end of time. This earnest payment in history on the final disinheritance is matched by the earnest payment in history on the final inheritance. This is surely the case in spiritual affairs.⁽⁶⁾ Debates over eschatology are debates over the extent to which these earnest payments in history are also cultural and civilizational, and whether they image the final judgment, i.e., to what extent history is an earnest on eternity.⁽⁷⁾

James B. Jordan
Judges: God's War Against Humanism

Hormah

17. Then Judah went with Simeon his brother, and they struck the Canaanites living in Zephath, and utterly destroyed it. So the name of the city was called Hormah. Now we see Judah making good her bargain with Simeon. The destruction of Canaanite Zephath was total, so that the place was called Hormah.

This is not the only “Hormah,” for we read in Numbers 21:1-3 of a place that was also “devoted to destruction,” and as a result was called Hormah.

Hormah means “placed under the ban, totally destroyed.” To be placed under the ban is to be devoted to death. Just as the Nazirite was devoted to God in life (for instance, Samson, Samuel), so the banned person or city was devoted wholly to God in death. To put under the ban means to curse and to devote to total destruction.

The preeminent example of a city devoted to total destruction is Jericho, the story of which is recorded in Joshua 6:15-19. Everything living was to be killed, all the treasures brought to the house of God, and the city was to be burned with fire. No personal booty was allowed.

More light is shed on this matter in Deuteronomy 13:12-18. The apostate city is to be banned, and “then you shall gather all its booty into the middle of its open square and burn the city and all its booty with fire as a whole burnt sacrifice to the LORD your God; and it shall be a ruin forever. It shall never be rebuilt” (v. 16).

From this we learn that it was God’s fire, lit by Himself from heaven (Lev. 9:24; 2 Chron. 7:1), kept burning perpetually on the altar, which was used to ignite the city placed under the ban. (See also Gen. 22:6 and 1 Ki. 18:38.) The fact that God starts His fire shows that the sacrifice is His sacrifice, the sacrifice that He Himself provides to propitiate His own fiery wrath. Man has no hand in it, and only an ordained priest may handle it. Man is impotent in his salvation, so that man cannot even light the sacrificial fire. If he dares to do so, God destroys him (Lev. 10:1-2).

All men stand on God’s altar. Those who accept God’s Substitute, the very Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, can step off the altar and escape the fire. Jesus takes the fire for them. He becomes the whole burnt sacrifice. Those who refuse the Substitute, however, are left on the altar, and are burnt up by the fire of God. (See Gen. 19:24; Rev. 18:8; Rev. 20:14f.; and for further study, Heb. 12:29; Ex. 3:2-5; Heb. 12:18; Num. 11:1-3; Num. 16:35; Num. 21:6; Gen. 3:25; 2 Pet. 3:9-12; Rev. 8:3-5).

Thus, the destruction of Hormah was a priestly act, issuing from the flaming swords of the cherubic (priestly) guardians of the land, a revelation of God’s direct fiery judgment against the wicked. Not every city was to be destroyed in this fashion, but certain ones were, as types of the wrath of God. This horrible judgment, introduced here at the beginning of Judges, comes again in Judges 20:40, when it is an apostate Israelite city that is burnt up as a sacrifice to God.

R. J. Rushdoony argued that Exodus 30 -- a man's payment of half a shekel upon reaching age 20 -- was a head tax. He was incorrect. The payment went to the priests, not to a civil magistrate ("captain"). The tip-off was that it was calculated as a shekel of the sanctuary, which was a separate, ecclesiastical coin. This was blood money. It was paid on a man's entry into God's holy army, which was both priestly and civil. I discuss this in Chapter 32 of Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus (1990).

(That the army was "priestly" can be seen directly from Scripture. That the army was "civil" may be reading modern categories into the text.)

The military was not necessarily a state function over against a Church function in the Old Covenant. Indeed, holy war was a specifically priestly function. The torching of cities is to be understood as taking God's fire off from His altar and applying His holy fiery wrath to his enemies. Thus, the torched cities were called "whole burnt sacrifices" in the Hebrew Old Testament (Deut. 13:16; Judg. 1:17, 20:40, in Hebrew). During the holy war, the men became temporary priests by taking the Nazirite vow (Num. 6; 2 Sam. 11:11 + Exo. 19:15; Deut. 23:9-14; Judg. 5:2, "That long locks of hair hung loose in Israel. . ."). This is all to say that the rendering of specific judgments is a sabbatical and priestly function, not a kingly one.... The sword of the state executes according to the judgments rendered by the priests....

Thus, the military duty is priestly, and a duty of every believer-priest. Both Church and state are involved in it, since the Church must say whether the war is just and holy, and the state must organize the believer-priests for battle. The mustering of the host for a census is, then, not a "civil" function as opposed to an ecclesiastical one, and the atonement money of Exodus 30 is not a poll tax, as some have alleged.

James Jordan, "Appendix D: State Financing in the Bible," in The Law of the Covenant, 231-32 (1984), at http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/: HTML, DjVu.

Biblical salvation entails not simply the establishment of the Church, but entails the restoration of the whole fabric of life, including social life. Perhaps then we should expect to find God giving us a blueprint of the perfect civil government, of the Christian state. Some people in history have thought that the Bible, in the Mosaic law, was doing just that, but in fact there is no corpus as such of judicial laws in the Bible. The reason why so many people have erred in looking at the Old Testament laws as if they were judicial laws designed for some state is that since the rebellion of man, the human race has been infected with Statism, and thus men tend to look at the Bible through glasses tinted with this Statism.

This explains why we do not find a set of judicial laws in the Bible. All the laws of Scripture, including the social laws, are religious. The social laws are God-centered. Some of them relate to Christian civil government, but there is no corpus of civil law or judicial law because the Bible is not a Statist document.

James Jordan, "Appendix E: Salvation and Statism," in The Law of the Covenant, 240-42 (1984), at http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/: HTML, DjVu.

---

“In the literature of Protestantism, it is assumed that the law of God comes in three categories: moral, judicial, and ceremonial. The criticism rightly shows that this category scheme is erroneous. What has been termed ‘judicial law’ is not in fact a legal code, but rather is a set of explanations of the moral law.”
James B. Jordan, “Calvinism and ‘The Judicial Law of Moses': An Historical Survey,” Journal of Christian Reconstruction 5(1978-79):19:

THEONOMY: AN INFORMED RESPONSE
Gary North, p. 259-60

At this point, I am suggesting a weakness in the Westminster
Confession's tripartite division of biblical law: moral, ceremonial,
and judicial. The moral law is said to be permanently binding
(XIX:2). The ceremonial law is said to have been abrogated by [260]
the New Covenant (XIX:3). The judicial law is said to have applied
only to national Israel and not to the New Covenant era,
except insofar as a law was (is) part of something called the
"general equity" (XIX:4) This formulation assumes that the
judicial law applied only to Israel's "body politic." But what of
the family? It is a separate covenantal administration, bound by
a lawful oath under God. Which civil laws in Israel protected
the family? To what extent have these laws been annulled or
modified (perhaps tightened) by the New Covenant? And why?

I am here suggesting the need for a restructuring of this
traditional tripartite division into civil, ecclesiastical, and familial.
In other words, the divisions should match the Bible's tripartite
covenantal and institutional division. There are continuities
(moral law) and discontinuities (redemptive-historical applications)
in all three covenantal law-orders. It is the task of the
interpreter to make these distinctions and interrelationships
clear. The church has been avoiding this crucial task (exegetical
and applicational) for over three centuries. The result has been
the dominance of ethical dualism in Christian social theory:
natural law theory coupled with pietism and/or mysticism.

• No war in the history of the United States has been justified from a Biblical perspective.
• The "Good War" was a Bad War.
• The United States is a "warlord state," having killed, crippled, or made homeless tens of millions of innocent non-combatant civilians in the last half century, in a state where the Constitution is a fiction and the "military-industrial complex" is actually dictating public policy.

related: Swords into Plowshares

The Biblical Mandate for Peace

The Bible is a pacifist manifesto. From cover to cover it opposes war. People use the Bible to justify war based on the flimsiest evidence. They're missing the Big Picture. The Big Picture is in this column. An analysis of the flimsy support for war is in the column on the left-hand side.

(Isaiah 9:6-7) For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of peace. {7} Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

(Luke 2:8-14) And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them ... and the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,
Glory to God in the highest, and peace on earth, good will toward men.

(Luke 1:77-79) To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins, {78} Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us, {79} To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.

(Proverbs 16:7) When man's ways please the LORD, He maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him.

(Hosea 2:18) And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of the heavens, and with the creeping things of the ground; and I will break the bow and the sword and warfare out of the earth, and will make them to lie down safely.

(Revelation 1:4) John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;

Christianity: Religion of Peace
Islam: Religion of Jihad?

R.J. Rushdoony

If you were to go through scripture and collect the passages that deal with peace, you would find it surprising how many such passages there are. Very clearly, peace is a central purpose of God's plan for man and the earth. Peace as scripture describes it is first and foremost peace with God. Then when man is at peace with God, there is peace between man and man, and man and nature.

Let us now look a little further into the doctrine of peace. Peace is a translation of a Hebrew word, Shalom. We have it in ‘Jerusalem’. Salem. It is the greeting in Hebrew. Instead of saying hello, it is: ‘Shalom’. Peace. Now, peace, shalom, in Hebrew, comes from the root ‘to be whole’ wholeness, soundness, health, well-being, prosperity, peace as opposed to war, concord as opposed to strife.

As a result the Biblical doctrine of peace is very closely related to the Biblical doctrine of salvation. This is why throughout the New Testament, as well as in Old Testament prophesy, the culmination of Christ’s work is peace. And Christ even in the midst of trouble and of strife and turmoil, gives us peace.

“Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you, not as the world giveth give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.”

Peace, thus, is a present possession in Christ; and it is a future possession as Christ’s reign is extended throughout the world

Peace is thus, that order of peace and prosperity, a salvation of health, which flows out of our reconciliation to God in Jesus Christ, and our restoration to life under God. Life in Eden was a life of peace with God, therefore peace with yourself, peace with nature. The source of that peace is the primary relationship with God, and Christ having restored it, all other forms of peace shall flow out of that peace we have with God, in Jesus Christ.

Statist peace, on the other hand, is simply an absence of hostility. It means that war has ended. That there has been a suppression, perhaps, of criminal activity. The state cannot regenerate man. It cannot even establish the limited peace it aims at, because the power of the state is essentially the power of the sword. The state cannot order [compel] men to love one another, or to live in peace, and when it tries to do so it only aggravates the situation.

The state therefore can never bring about peace. As a matter of fact, the state, when it tries to make peace its goal, only destroys the peace of citizens and usurps God's peace and the free-man’s peace in Christ. The state can only be an instrument of peace when it ... acknowledges that peace can only come when man is redeemed by God in Christ.

Thus the doctrine of peace is a very important one in law, because it is first of all important in terms of the doctrine of salvation. The vine and the fig tree imagery are thus essential to scripture. They are God-centered doctrines, God-centered symbols, setting forth the peace, the salvation, the fulfillment of man in prosperity, in joy, and in wellbeing. In God through Christ.

There is no peace, no fulfillment for man in any other way.

More Bible Verses about War, Peace, and Pacifism:
For deeper understanding, look up these scripture verses in your own Bible and read them in context.

The Bible is a pacifist manifesto. Those who defend war take a few verses out of their theological context and ignore the rest of the Bible.

Sixth Commandment

Thou shalt not kill

("Kill" is not limited to "murder." See, e.g., Deuteronomy 4:42.)

Sermon on the Mount

Matthew 5

³ “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
⁴ Blessed are those who mourn,
For they shall be comforted.
⁵ Blessed are the meek,
For they shall inherit the earth.
⁶ Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
For they shall be filled.
⁷ Blessed are the merciful,
For they shall obtain mercy.
⁸ Blessed are the pure in heart,
For they shall see God.
⁹ Blessed are the peacemakers,
For they shall be called sons of God.
¹⁰ Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

¹¹ “Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. ¹² Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

³⁸ “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ ³⁹ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. ⁴⁰ If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. ⁴¹ And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. ⁴² Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.

⁴³ “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’⁴⁴ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, ⁴⁵ that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. ⁴⁶ For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? ⁴⁷ And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? ⁴⁸ Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

Luke 6

²⁷ “But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, ²⁸ bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you. ²⁹ To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also. And from him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic either. ³⁰ Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back. ³¹ And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise.

³² “But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. ³³ And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. ³⁴ And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back. ³⁵ But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. ³⁶ Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful.

³⁷ “Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. ³⁸ Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you.”

The Sovereignty of God - Providence

Deuteronomy 20:1
“When you go out to battle against your enemies, and see horses and chariots and people more numerous than you, do not be afraid of them; for the Lord your God is with you, who brought you up from the land of Egypt.

Leviticus 26:6
I will give peace in the land, and you shall lie down, and none will make you afraid;

Micah 4:3-4
3 they shall beat their swords into plowshares,
    and their spears into pruning hooks;
nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
    neither shall they learn war anymore;
4 but they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree,
    and no one shall make them afraid,

Jeremiah 30:10
10 “Then fear not, O Jacob my servant, declares the Lord,
       nor be dismayed, O Israel;
for behold, I will save you from far away,
      and your offspring from the land of their captivity.
Jacob shall return and have quiet and ease,
      and none shall make him afraid.

Hosea 2:18
18 And I will abolish the bow, the sword, and war from the land, and I will make you lie down in safety.

Zephaniah 3:13
13     those who are left in Israel;
they shall do no injustice
        and speak no lies,
nor shall there be found in their mouth
        a deceitful tongue.
For they shall graze and lie down,
        and none shall make them afraid.”

1 Samuel 8:11-13
¹¹ And he said, “This will be the behavior of the king who will reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them for his own chariots and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots. ¹² He will appoint captains over his thousands and captains over his fifties, will set some to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. ¹³ He will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers.

Psalm 20:7
Some trust in chariots, and some in horses; But we will remember the name of the Lord our God.

Psalm 46:9
He makes wars cease to the end of the earth; He breaks the bow and cuts the spear in two; He burns the chariot in the fire.

Psalm 76:6
At Your rebuke, O God of Jacob, Both the chariot and horse were cast into a dead sleep.

Isaiah 31:1 Alas for those who go down to Egypt for help and who rely on horses, who trust in chariots because they are many and in horsemen because they are very strong, but do not look to the Holy One of Israel or consult the LORD!

Matthew 10.28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father’s will. 30 But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.

Romans 8.37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Colossians 1.16 for in him [the son] all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him.

Hebrews 1.2-3 In these last days [God] has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds. 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

Luke 12:22 And he said to his disciples, "Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat, nor about your body, what you shall put on.

Humility

Luke 6:37 "Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven;

Luke 6:42 Or how can you say to your neighbor, ’Friend, let me take out the speck in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.

Overcoming Evil

1 Peter 3.8 Finally, all of you, have unity of spirit, sympathy, love of the brethren, a tender heart and a humble mind. :9 Do not return evil for evil or reviling for reviling; but on the contrary bless, for to this you have been called, that you may obtain a blessing.

Romans 12.17-21 Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. 18 If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." 20 No, "if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads."
21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good .

1Thessalonians 5:15 See that none of you repays evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to all.

THE ROOTS OF WAR

James 4
4 Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members? ² You lust and do not have. You murder and covet and cannot obtain. You fight and war. Yet you do not have because you do not ask. ³ You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures.⁴ Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.

Galatians 5.19-23 Now the works of the flesh are clear, which are these: evil desire, unclean things, wrong use of the senses, 20 Worship of images, use of strange powers, hates, fighting, desire for what another has, angry feelings, attempts to get the better of others, divisions, false teachings, 21 Envy, uncontrolled drinking and feasting, and such things: of which I give you word clearly, even as I did in the past, that they who do such things will have no part in the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, a quiet mind, kind acts, well-doing, faith, 23 Gentle behavior, control over desires: against such there is no law.

Matthew 6.24 You cannot serve God and mammon.

Luke 4.5 Then the devil led Jesus up and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. 6 And the devil said to him, "To you I will give their glory and all this authority; for it has been given over to me, and I give it to anyone I please. 7 If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours."

THE WAY OF PEACE

Luke 2:14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of good-will.

John 14.27. Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you.

Matthew 5.9. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called sons of God.

James 3.18. The fruit of righteousness is sown in peace for them that make peace.

Romans 10.15. How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace.

Ephesians 6.14 f. Stand therefore . . . having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace.

Ephesians 4.1-3 I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beseech you to walk worthily of the calling wherewith you were called, with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

Hebrews 12.14 Follow after peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no man shall see the Lord.

Romans 16.20. The God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.

2 Corinthians 13.11 Finally, brethren . . . be perfected; be comforted; be of the same mind; live in peace: and the God of love and peace shall be with you.

Philippians 4.7 The peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus..

THE VICTORY of SELFLESSNESS

Matthew 11:29. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

Philippians 2:5 10. Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant. He humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross. Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name; that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow.

Matthew 5:3, 5. Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

Matthew 5:25-28. You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Not so shall it be among you: but whosoever would become great among you shall be your minister; and whosoever would be first among you shall be your servant: even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Matthew 23.12 Whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled; and whosoever shall humble himself shall be exalted.

1 Peter 5:5 -6. God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble. Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time.

THE COMMANDMENT OF LOVE

Matthew 22:37-40 Jesus said to him, ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.

Galatians 5.14 The whole law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; you shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Romans 13.10, 8 Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments ... are summed up in this word, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'

Matthew 5.44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

John 13:34 f. A new commandment I give unto you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this shall all men know that you are my disciples.

1 John 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hates his brother, he is a liar: for he that loves not his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.

I Corinthians 13.4 f. Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; ... bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.

1 Thessalonians 3.12. The Lord make you to increase and abound in love toward one another, and toward all men.

1 Peter 1:22. Seeing you have purified your souls in your obedience to the truth unto unfeigned love of the brethren, love one another from the heart fervently.

1 Peter 4.8. Above all things be fervent in your love among yourselves; for love covers a multitude of sins.

THE DUTY OF FORGIVENESS

Luke 23:34. Jesus said, 'Father forgive them; for they know not what they do.'

Mark 11.25 Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against any one; that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.

Luke 17.3 f. If your brother sin, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. And if he sin against you seven times in the day, and seven times turn again to you saying, I repent; you shall forgive him.

Colossians 3.12 Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering; bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do.

Ephesians 4:31f. Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamor, and railing, be put away from you, with all malice: and be you kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving each other, even as God also in Christ forgave you.

CHRIST S WAY OF MEETING EVIL

1 Peter 2.21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
22 He committed no sin; no guile was found on his lips. 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he trusted to him who judges justly.

Matthew 26.47 And while [Jesus] was still talking, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a band armed with swords and sticks, from the chief priests and those in authority over the people. 48 Now the false one had given them a sign saying, The one to whom I give a kiss, that is he: take him. 49 And straight away he came to Jesus and said, Master! and gave him a kiss. 50 And Jesus said to him, Friend, do that for which you have come. Then they came and put hands on Jesus, and took him. 51 And one of those who were with Jesus put out his hand, and took out his sword and gave the servant of the high priest a blow, cutting off his ear. 52 Then says Jesus to him, Put up your sword again into its place: for all those who take the sword will come to death by the sword. 53 Does it not seem possible to you that if I make request to my Father he will even now send me an army of angels? (BBE)

John 18.36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. (KJV)

John 12:47. I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

Luke 9:54 f. When his disciples saw this, they said, Lord, would you that we bid fire to come down from heaven, and consume them? But He turned and rebuked them.

1 Corinthians 4:12. Being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we endure; being defamed, we intreat.

James 4:12. One only is the lawgiver and judge, even he who is able to save and to destroy: but who are you that judge your neighbor?

Matthew 7:12 In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets.

Luke 6:27 f. Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you.

Matthew 5.39. Resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smites you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.

I Corinthians 6:7. Why not rather take wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?

2 Timothy 2:24. The Lord s servant must not strive, but be gentle towards all forbearing in meekness, correcting them that oppose themselves.

Romans 12:14 f. Bless them that persecute you; bless, and curse not. . . . Render to no man evil for evil.... If you can, so far as it depends on you, live at peace with all the world... Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." But if your enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him to drink: for in so doing you shall heap coals of fire upon his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

1 Thessalonians 5.15 . See that none render unto any one evil for evil; but always follow after that which is good, one toward another, and toward all.

1 Peter 3:8 f. Finally, be you all like-minded, compassionate, loving as brethren, tenderhearted, : humble minded not rendering evil for evil, or reviling for reviling; but contrariwise blessing; for hereunto were you called, that you should inherit a blessing.

THE WAY OF THE CROSS

Romans 5:8. God commends his own love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Hebrews 12 :2. Jesus the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising shame.

1 Peter 4.1. Forasmuch then as Christ suffered in the flesh, arm you yourselves also with the same mind.

2 Corinthians 4:8 10. We are pressed on every side, yet not straitened; perplexed, yet not unto despair; pursued, yet not forsaken; smitten down, yet not destroyed; always bearing about in the body the dying of Jesus, that the life also of Jesus may be manifested in our body.

Matthew 16:24 If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross, and follow me....

Hebrews 13.12f. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people through his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us therefore go forth unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.

John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

THE MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION

Romans 5.8,10 8 But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.... 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life;
and not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.

Colossians 1:19 f. It was the good pleasure of the Father that in him should all the fulness dwell; and through him to reconcile all things unto himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross.

Ephesians 2:14 17. He is our peace, who made both one, and broke down the middle wall of partition, having abolished in his flesh the enmity . . . that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace; and might reconcile them both in one body unto God through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: and he came and preached peace to you that were far off, and peace to them that were nigh.

2 Corinthians 5:18 f. All things are of God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and gave .unto us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses, and having committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

THE FAMILY OF NATIONS

Ephesians 3.15 I bow my knees unto the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named.

Ephesians 4:25. Wherefore, putting away falsehood, speak you truth each one with his neighbor: for we are members one of another.

1 Corinthians 12:13. In one spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit.

Romans 10:12. For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek: for the same Lord is Lord of all, and is rich unto all that call upon him.

Galatians 3:28. There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male or female: for you are all one man in Christ Jesus.

Colossians 3.11 There cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondman, freeman; but Christ is all, and in all.

THE MORAL EQUIVALENT OF WAR

1 Timothy 6.12. Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on the life eternal.

1 John 5.4 This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith.

2 Corinthians 10:3-5. For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but mighty before God to the casting down of strong holds ; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that is exalted against the knowledge of God, and bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.

Ephesians 6.12f For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Wherefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and, having done all, to stand.

2 Timothy 2:3. Take your part in suffering hardship, as a good soldier of Christ Jesus.

2 Timothy 4:7 f. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give to me at that day: and not only to me, but also to all them that have loved his appearing.

What about Exodus 22:2-3

"If a thief is caught in the act of breaking into a house and is struck and killed in the process, the person who killed the thief is not guilty of murder.
But if it happens in daylight, the one who killed the thief is guilty of murder.

Matthew Henry

Yet, if it was in the day-time that the thief was killed, he that killed him must be accountable for it (Exod. 22:3), unless it was in the necessary defence of his own life. Note, We ought to be tender of the lives even of bad men;

Reformation Study Bible

The daytime thief was readily identifiable and killing was not justified.

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

In the latter case the slayer contracted blood-guiltiness, because even the life of a thief was to be spared, as he could be punished for his crime, and what was stolen be restored according to the regulations laid down in Exodus 22:1 and Exodus 22:4.

If a thief be found - If a thief was found breaking into a house in the night season, he might be killed; but not if the sun had risen, for then he might be known and taken, and the restitution made which is mentioned in the succeeding verse

If a thief, in breaking into a dwelling in the night, was slain, the person who slew him did not incur the guilt of blood; but if the same occurred in daylight, the slayer was guilty in accordance with Exodus 21:12. The distinction may have been based on the fact that in the light of day there was a fair chance of identifying and apprehending the thief.

The New Testament was written in the last days of the Old Covenant. The "night" of the Old Age was passing (Hebrews 8:13), and we are now to live in the Day (Romans 13:11-13; Luke 1:78; Malachi 4:2; Revelation 22:5; 1 John 2:8). Christians who live in the Day do not need to kill. God will hold us to the higher standard.

“And [Jesus] came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both [Jews and Gentiles] have access by one Spirit unto the Father” (Ephesians 2:17-18).
This is the truly “good news” of the Star of Jacob, the Star of Bethlehem, and the King which it announces.
The American Vision: Why a Star?

Civilization depends on getting people to be more like Jesus. It cannot depend on the creation of a strong state.

Pacifism and Civilization

The Concept of "The State" is a Product of "Natural Law," not Biblical Law.

1. Basic Christian morality:
   1. "Don't Hurt People and Don't Take Their Stuff"
2. If I want to hurt other people and take their stuff I am an unsanctified rebel. "Political Man" rather than "Economic Man."
   1. The Origin of the State
   2. The State is a "Monopoly of Violence"
   3. The Command to shed blood ("capital punishment") was given to the Family (Genesis 9), not "the State."
   4. All legitimate social functions which today's political scientists monopolize in the hands of "civil government" were either patriarchal (familial) or priestly.
   5. Biblical Survey of the rise and abolition of "the State." New95Theses.com
3. If I approve of those who hurt people and take their stuff because I think I benefit in some way, I am an idolater.
   1. Those who exercise a monopoly of violence with your approval are my "gods."
   2. I think their acts will bring me "salvation" (in the holistic socio-economic sense of that word, found in the majority of occurrences of the term in Scripture).
   3. But the Bible says Jesus is the only King we need to create social salvation (Isaiah 33:22)
4. Although every human being is required to leave vengeance to God (Romans 12:19), every civil government squarely rejects this command. By design. By definition.
   1. If an individual or a group of people are not sinning -- violating God's Law -- by engaging in extortion to fund violent acts of vengeance, then that individual or group is not a "civil government." It is a business, or a charity, or a voluntary association of some kind, but it is not "the State."
   2. "The State" is inherently -- inescapably -- sinful, or else it is not a "civil government."
5. There is no verse of Scripture to which anyone in 2022 can point and say, "This verse assures me that if I hurt people and take their stuff, God will not hold me guilty of sin."
   1. Jesus prohibits His followers from being "archists" (Mark 10:42-45).
   2. It is a sin to be an archist.
   3. The Bible is an Anarchist Manifesto

That's a "Prima Facie" case against the State. I've never seen these arguments engaged. The traditional defense of "the State" is rooted in Natural Law, not Biblical Law. If you take the Bible seriously, those who occupy positions of political power should abdicate -- after preventing succession by abolishing their office entirely.

Traditional defenders of the State argue that this line of argument promotes "anarchism," and "everybody knows" that anarchism is chaos and is wrong.

The reply to this is simple:

1. The absence of civil government in the area of computers, housing, groceries, automobiles, and recreation has not resulted in "chaos."
2. It is the presence of government intervention that creates shortages and economic uncertainty ("chaos").
3. This perspective (sometimes called "anarcho-capitalism") is not encouraging widespread social lawlessness ("anarchy!") by indicting the lawlessness of "the State."
   1. Anarchy is never the result of anarchy.
   2. Restated,
      Anarchy (that is, anarcho-capitalism; the abolition of "civil government") is never the result of anarchy (that is, chaos and lawlessness in society).
      Anarchy (social chaos) is not the result of anarchy (widespread social moral elevation to pacifism, social repudiation of violence, affirmation of Biblical Law, and abolition of the "monopoly of violence" known as "the State").
   3. (Throughout history, more civil governments have been overthrown by other civil governments than by "anarchists.")
   4. The only path to anarchy is Theocracy. The only society that will ever abolish the State is a deeply Theonomic one.
4. If you don't approve of those who hurt people and take their stuff, and they want to hurt you and take your stuff, God commands you to "be subject" to them.
   1. Forgive enemies (Matthew 6:14-15)
   2. Love enemies (Matthew 5:44)
   3. Bless enemies (Romans 12:14)
   4. Pray for enemies (Luke 6:27-28)
   5. Give gifts to enemies (Romans 12:20; Matthew 5:42; Luke 6:30)
   6. Render unto Caesar, your enemy who invaded your country, slaughtered thousands of your countrymen, and put your country under tribute (an undemocratic occupation government that enslaves and pillages your people) (Matthew 22:15-22; Mark 12:13-17; Luke 20:20-26)
   7. Exhort your enemy to repent (Matthew 18:15-17)
   8. And if all these fail to bring repentance, restitution, and reconciliation,
   • Leave vengeance to God (Romans 12:19-21)
   9. In short, to follow "in His steps" (1 Peter 2:21), you have a moral obligation to "be subject" to sinful acts which the defendant/perpetrators have a moral obligation to repent of (cease and desist).

The "Anarcho-Capitalist" objection to political "gods" has not been engaged and refuted.

Defenders of the "natural law" view of the State raise Romans 13, claiming that God would only require pacifism (submission and non-violence in the face of state violence) if the State is justified in its violence.

Anarcho-Capitalists respond:

1. Romans 13 is about "the powers." Everywhere that word is used in the New Testament it signifies demonic evil. Verses | Romans13.com
2. Everyone in Paul's day -- Christians and Romans alike -- believed that the Empire was guided by "demons." See the references in the link above.
3. The fact that the Empire "served" God's purposes does not mean that Empire wasn't sinning and had no moral obligation to repent of the acts which God predestined them to commit for His own reasons, and which God commanded victims to "be subject" to. All men are commanded to "beat swords into plowshares" (Micah 4:3), but those who disobey this command still serve God's purposes.
4. No Empire -- no matter how evil -- ever bears the sword of violence "in vain."
5. God works all things together "for good" (Romans 13:4; 8:28) even the evil things that governments (the "principalities and powers" [Romans 8:38; 13:1]) do (causing tribulation, distress, or persecution [Romans 12:14], or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword [Romans 8:35]). Those who do such things are morally obligated to repent of them (cease and desist).

"The State" is an Idol

"Civil Government" is a False god.

"Civil Law" is False Law

A moral Society depends on "Moral Law," not the shedding of blood by a "civil government."

The Westminster Divines failed to preserve the distinction between

Jerusalem vs. Athens

Christian Civilization depends on Biblical Law (Jerusalem) Not "Natural Law" (Athens)

And it will come about in the last days
That the mountain of the House of the LORD
Will be established as the chief of the mountains
And it will be raised above the hills
And the peoples will stream to it.
And many nations will come and say,
"Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD
And to the House of the God of Jacob,
That He may teach us about His ways
And that we may walk in His paths."
For from Zion will go forth the Law
Even the Word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
Micah 4:1-7

• "Western Civilization" is the Product of Jerusalem, Not Athens

• The City of God vs. The City of Man

None Dare Call it Blasphemy: The Reformers and Natural Law

• Introduction
   
• August Lang: A Reformed Look at the Reformers
   
• Rushdoony: A Theonomist Looks at the Reformers
   
• Benjamin Nelson: Usury, Natural Law, and the Reformers
   
• Benjamin Nelson Describes the Reformers' War on Biblical Law

Westminster and Fascism

Rushdoony's critique is based on Van Til's "Theonomy-Autonomy" dichotomy, and Van Til's critique of "natural law." Background on "natural law" is essential to understand why non-Theonomic Reformers and Puritans were unBiblical.

God's Law vs. "Natural Law"

Suppose a civil magistrate seeks to draft a criminal code regarding sexual conduct. Should the government's laws be based on Leviticus 18, or on the latest thinking from the Harvard Law School? Tragically, many Reformers and Puritans opted for Harvard, speaking in terms of "natural law" or "the law of Nations." This means the laws of Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans.

Leviticus 18 says that the gentile nations would be judged and destroyed if they did not act Theonomically. God's Law was not just for Israel. But the gentile nations didn't always agree with God's Law. Here is some evidence that the gentiles did not agree with God's Law on sexuality:

The Biblical Source of Western Sexual Morality

This might not surprise even anti-Theonomists, but the same is true for non-Christian political thought:

Greek Mythology: The Myth of Classical Politics

• The Roman Empire was a conquering empire. Like secular America has become.
• It was an enslaving empire. 
• It was a debauched empire, opposed to your family values.

Getting government laws from these people is not just a "practical" mistake, it is rebellion against the Authority of God in His inscriptured Word.

This philosophical conflict has long been described as the conflict between Jerusalem (Christianity) and Athens (the Enlightenment). That was the title of Van Til's festschrift.

Gary North explains the foundational worldview assumptions of Roman culture:

(1) The legitimacy of homosexuality, especially the seduction of teenage boys by men over age 30;
(2) warfare as a man's supremely meaningful activity;
(3) polytheism;
(4) a personal demon as a philosopher's source of correct logic;
(5) slavery as the foundation of civilization;
(6) politics as mankind's only means of attaining the good life, meaning salvation;
(7) the exclusion of women from all aspects of public religion;
(8) the legitimacy of female infanticide.

The Harvard Law School contends that all of this "natural law" thinking is light-years more advanced than the "primitive" and "oppressive" laws of God in the Bible. And too many Reformers and Puritans agreed.

From the earliest church fathers to the most recent "process philosophy," Van Til built a body of work showing the compromise of Christians with unbelieving thought, primarily in the fields we call "philosophy" and "theology." Rushdoony applied Van Til's work to the State, and Gary North has done the same in the field of economics.

This is the big question in the "Theonomy Debate":

Is Natural Revelation Sufficient to Govern Culture?

Gary North,
Cooperation and Dominion: an Economic Commentary on Romans
Chapter 2, "The Work of the Law and Social Utility"

Natural law theory originated after the conquest of the Greek city-states, first by Alexander the Great and then by Rome. Stoic political philosophers had to replace their theory of the autonomy of the polis and its laws. They wanted to find some theoretical foundation for their ethical system, which had previously relied on intellectual defenses based on the sovereignty of the polis. Natural law theory was their solution.⁽⁷⁾

Natural law theory assumes that there is a common logic among men. This common-ground logic is said to bind all men, so that by adopting it, we can persuade all rational men of truths regarding social and political ethics. Christian philosophers have adopted this idea. They have confused it with the work of the law written on all men's hearts, which is a doctrine of common-ground ethics, not common-ground logic. The main effect of natural law theory today has been to persuade Christians to abandon the Bible as the basis of civil law and to begin a quest for common civil laws and common civil sanctions.

The theoretical problem with natural law theory is that covenant-breakers suppress the truth in unrighteousness.⁽⁸⁾ Their powers of reasoning have been negatively affected by sin. They begin with the assumption of their own intellectual autonomy. They cannot logically conclude from this assumption the existence of the absolutely sovereign God of the Bible and His binding law.⁽⁹⁾ Natural law theory is a logical system that begins with the assumption of man's autonomy, which means that natural law theory has nothing in common with the assumption of God's sovereignty. Natural law theory assumes that covenant-breaking men can build and sustain a just society on the basis of natural laws, natural rights, and universal logic.

Natural law theory also assumes that sin and its effects have not adversely distorted the image of God in man. It assumes that fallen men do not actively suppress the truth. These two errors lead to a false conclusion, namely, that an appeal to common-ground logic can persuade fallen men. But if Paul was correct, how can natural men be persuaded to obey God, based on natural law theory? Paul entertained no such hope. "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14). God's law is spiritually discerned, but only by those who are spiritual -- and not even by very many of them, as the history of Christian political theory indicates. The work of God's law is naturally discerned to a degree sufficient to condemn men for disobeying it, but not sufficiently to enable them to build a biblically moral society. Paul makes it clear in Romans 1 that the natural man suppresses the testimony of creation regarding God the Creator, reinterpreting God to conform to his covenant-breaking interpretation of reality. Why should Christians believe that the natural man will not do the same thing with the work of the law written on his heart? Why should Christians believe that an appeal to natural law should be any more successful in bringing men to judicial truth than to theological truth?

Today, Christian scholars are among the few remaining defenders of natural law theory. Darwinism has undermined faith in natural law theory among most humanists. Autonomous, evolving nature is widely believed to offer no moral standards. Even the survival of a species is not a moral imperative. Darwinian nature has no moral imperatives. For Darwinism, there is no permanent natural law. Everything evolves, including ethics. Because man's social and physical environments change, says the Darwinist, any ethical standards that do not promote the survival of humanity must be abandoned if mankind is to survive, yet survival is not an ethical imperative of nature unless man somehow represents nature on behalf of . . . whom? Man? God? Nature?⁽¹⁰⁾ There is no agreement among Darwinists regarding either the existence or the content of fixed ethical precepts that are derived from nature. Darwinian ethical systems are shaped by mankind's uniquely perceived requirement to survive in a constantly changing environment. This is the creed of social Darwinism, whether statist (e.g., Lester Frank Ward) or individualist (e.g., Herbert Spencer).⁽¹¹⁾ This is also the creed of free market economists, Rothbard excepted.⁽¹²⁾

Natural law theory is always an attempt to fuse Jerusalem and Athens. It is an attempt to reconcile autonomous man and the God of the Bible. No such reconciliation is possible. Because of God's common grace, covenant-breaking men are restrained in their suppression of the work of the law in their hearts. But, as they think more consistently with their presuppositions regarding God, man, law, consequences, and time, they become more hostile to the work of the law in their hearts. Logic does not persuade them.

7. Sheldon S. Wolin, Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Political Thought (Boston: Little, Brown, 1960), pp. 77-82. ^

8. Chapter 1. ^

9. This was a major argument in the philosophy of Cornelius Van Til. ^

10. The deeply religious movement known as the deep ecology movement specifically rejects the idea that mankind in any way represents nature or possesses legitimate authority over nature. A clear statement of this movement's views is Bill McKibben, The End of Nature (New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1989). The book became a best seller. It has been translated into at least sixteen languages. ^

11. Gary North, The Dominion Covenant: Genesis (2nd ed.; Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1987), Appendix A. ^

12. Rothbard defended the idea of permanent ethical standards, which he believed are derived from Aristotelian natural rights theory. Rothbard broke with Mises' utilitarianism and Hayek's social evolutionism. Murray N. Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty (New York: New York University Press, [1982] 1998). On Hayek, see North, Dominion Covenant, Appendix B. ^

• Is Natural Revelation Sufficient to Govern Culture? -- John M. Frame

Natural Law Theory

Natural law theory was born in a time of breakdown: the breakdown of faith in the Greek city-state. Alexander and then Rome had conquered them all. Stoic philosophers sought a substitute theory of the local religious rites-based theory of the city-state.

The substitute was a theory of universal mankind, an idea foreign to classical Greek politics. This universal humanity possesses a common reason, they argued. Common reason allows men to come to agreement about ethics and law. Natural law theory was an attempt by philosophers to provide legitimacy for a world empire.

Natural law theory died as a widely believed social philosophy when Darwin's theory of evolution through unguided natural selection destroyed intellectuals' faith in an ethically normative nature.

Today, only a few conservative social thinkers, a few Protestant conservatives, and followers of Murray Rothbard still proclaim faith in natural law theory as a ground for ethics and society.

WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?

Natural law theory has always suffered from the dualism of all Greek thought: law vs. change. The unchanging pure logic of Parmenides cannot be reconciled to the constant historical flux of Heraclitus. Greek philosophy never resolved this dualism. No humanist philosophy ever has, either.

The problem today is that the tiny handful of natural law theory defenders are trying to breathe life into a long-dead horse. They are wasting precious time. Natural law theory has never worked as the basis of any social order, but after Charles Darwin, the academic community abandoned natural law theory. arwin taught that nature is impersonal and not normative. There is no universal ethics. There is only a constant struggle for personal survival. I have written about this in Appendix A of my book, The Dominion Covenant: Genesis.

Natural law theorists have yet to come up with a solution to this inconvenient fact: reason, meaning the never-proven, always sought-for "right reason" of natural law theory, has not led masses of people to adopt the same system of philosophy, ethics, or religion. Yet the theory rests on the assumption -- never proven -- that rational people can agree on these issues sufficiently to enable society to function both ethically and predictably, meaning rationally.

If the vast majority of men refuse to accept a concept of a fixed, universal common logic, let alone fixed, universal social and ethical laws, we cannot build a society based on natural law. This has always been true, but after Darwin's theory of natural selection, it has become more obvious to all but a handful of natural law defenders. They defend the idea of a universal theory of ethics and social order, the details of which have yet to be presented in a form that more than a few social theorists are willing to accept. Natural law theory requires logical universality to be true, yet the supposedly universal practical details of the system have never gained anything like a simple majority.

Christian social theorists (there are not many) are among the few remaining defenders of natural law theory. This is ironic, because natural law theory cannot be defended biblically. Paul wrote, "The natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God" (I Corinthians 2:14a). He wrote that natural men turn to false Gods and suppress the truth that is in them (Romans 1:18-22). This undermines any theory of natural law for a consistently Christian society.

Natural law theory rests on these presuppositions, all of which are denied by the Bible: (1) the autonomy of man's mind; (2) the sufficiency of reason; (3) the autonomy of the universe; (4) the common ethics of all revealed religion. In short, the natural man does not need to receive the things of the spirit in matters of social theory and policy. In these areas, men do not need the things of the spirit, which are divisive. Natural men are therefore autonomous, and natural law theory rests on this presupposition.

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

We need a detailed history of natural law theory that reveals the perpetual conflict between fixed law ("Parmenides") and changing circumstances ("Heraclitus"). The book should demonstrate that natural law theory has always been afflicted by this unresolved dualism: law vs. flux, logic vs. history.

The Greeks did not solve this problem. The Greek city states exhausted themselves in continual warfare. Alexander the Great conquered them. Then Rome conquered the remains of his empire. Natural law theory was an attempt to provide meaning and hope in a world without the autonomous local Greek polis.

Show from the sources that Christianity imported natural law theory and tried to make it correspond to the Bible's revelational ethics. Show how the attempt failed because of (1) the conflict between biblical ethics and natural law categories, and (2) the inherent dualism of fixed rational law and historical flux.

The culmination of this failed attempt was Thomas Aquinas' philosophy. Show why the system he developed inevitably broke down: the Greek law vs. flux dualism and the Bible vs. Greek philosophy dualism.

Show why modern social theory since Edmund Burke has suffered from dualism: universal natural rights (French Revolution) vs. the constitutional rights of Englishmen or whoever (conservatism).

Show how Darwinism destroyed the acceptability of natural law theory among evolutionists.

WHERE TO BEGIN

Begin with the works of Cornelius Van Til. Start with In Defense of the Faith: A Survey of Christian Epistemology (In Defense of Biblical Christianity, Vol. 2). Then go to A Christian Theory of Knowledge. Or buy his CD-ROM, which is searchable: The Works of Cornelius Van Til.

For a survey of the dualisms in Greek, medieval, and modern (post-Kant) philosophy, consult Herman Dooyeweerd, In the Twilight of Western Thought (1960). For detailed discussions of specific philosophers and issues, consult his 4-volume study, A New Critique of Theoretical Thought (1953--58).

On the local religious rites-based origins of the Greek city-state, see Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges, The Ancient City (1864).

On the breakdown of Roman philosophy, a standard treatment is Christianity and Classical Culture (1940), by Charles Norris Cochrane. It has been reprinted by Liberty Fund.

For late-medieval philosophy, a good introduction to its inherent dualism is the little-known book, Bradwardine and the Pelagians (1957), by Gordon Leff.

Then go to Otto von Gierke's standard book, Natural Law and the Theory of Society, 1500 to 1800 (1957).

On the substitution of the theory of evolution for natural law theory in economic theory, see my book (on-line, free), The Dominion Covenant: Genesis (1987), Appendix B.

Gary North
Boundaries and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Leviticus
Chapter 14: Impartial Justice vs. Socialist Economics

The issue of the absolute authority of God's specially revealed civil law challenges the competing theoretical structure of natural law, natural reason, and natural revelation. We need to ask: Can these three theoretical ideals serve as sufficient guides for establishing God's legal requirements? Or is direct revelation from the God of the Bible mandatory covenantally in the civil realm?

Let us take the easiest case to analyze. God told Adam that he was not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If natural law, natural reason, and natural revelation were sufficient to inform mankind of the judicial boundaries established by God, then why did God reveal to Adam this single binding law and its single negative sanction? Adam was morally perfect. His eyes were not yet blinded by sin. The creation was without blemish in Genesis 2. It did not yet provide misleading information to mankind. But God nevertheless revealed His law verbally to Adam. Why? Because natural law, natural reason, and natural revelation alone are not sufficient to enable men to know God's binding covenant law in its entirety. If this was true for Adam, then it is surely true today, since men possess only fallen reason, and the creation itself is under a curse.

Had God's civil laws been revealed in some way other than through direct verbal revelation to Moses by God, such as through the universal reason of mankind, there would have been no need for God to require that the whole law be read publicly in Israel every seventh year (Deut. 31:10-13). Men would already have known this requirement "rationally." But they did not know.⁽⁵⁾ Then what do men know? They are responsible before God, so they must know something about God's law. Men always know enough about God's covenant law to get themselves condemned by God eternally -- the work of the law (not the law itself) written in their hearts (Rom. 2:14-15)⁽⁶⁾ -- but not enough to enable them to build the kingdom of God in history. This is why those Christians who affirm natural law rather than biblical law as the sole authoritative moral standard for society almost always also explicitly deny that it is either possible or required by God that Christians build the kingdom of God in history as God's designated judicial agents.⁽⁷⁾

A Question of Judicial Subordination

The inherent ethical dualism of natural law theology has had catastrophic effects in history. The dualism between Bible-revealed personal Christian ethics and religiously neutral, universally perceivable civil law inescapably demobilizes Christians in society and simultaneously anoints pagans as the lawful interpreters of natural law. Ethical dualism inevitably places God's designated judicial agents -- Christians -- under the civil and cultural authority of Satan's designated judicial agents. Why? Because it places natural law, natural revelation, and natural reason above God's revealed law, His progressively restored creation,⁽⁸⁾ and the mind of Christ (I Cor. 2:16).⁽⁹⁾ There is no neutrality; there is always judicial hierarchy. Some law-order must be on top. Some transgressors of this law-order must be on the bottom. Christian natural law theorists in principle place a hypothetically neutral natural law on top and Christians on the bottom.

In the early stages of this cultural conquest by covenant-breakers, natural law theory is a highly useful tool for covenant-breakers in their epistemological and political disarming of Christians. The infiltrators applaud ethical dualism: separate ethical standards for believers and skeptics, but a common civil law-order for all. This common law-order must not be based on some "narrow" appeal to standards uniquely revealed in the Bible, an ethical handbook for covenant-keepers only. Dualism keeps Christians happily subservient to politically successful pagans in the name of Jesus. That is to say, dualism keeps Jesus covenantally subordinate to Satan on earth and in history. When Norman Geisler asks, "Whose ethical standard shall we use?" and immediately answers, "a moral law common to all men"⁽¹⁰⁾ -- natural law for the natural man -- he has in principle delivered society into the hands of Satan's designated judicial agents in history. The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit (I Cor. 2:14); therefore, the ethical dualist is logically compelled to affirm, the Holy Spirit has nothing judicially binding to say or do with society and politics. If He did, then the natural man, not being able to receive the things of the Spirit, would be spiritually unreliable to exercise civil authority. Political pluralism rests philosophically on ethical dualism, for it asserts the legitimacy of common citizenship based on religiously neutral civil law. Ethical dualism necessarily asserts the judicial irrelevance of the Holy Spirit to both social theory and political theory. For almost two millennia, ethical dualism has been the dominant outlook of the church's main spokesmen.⁽¹¹⁾

There is no neutrality. The ethical dualist denies this with respect to civil law. By elevating natural law, natural reason, and natural revelation above God's inspired word for the purpose of establishing social and political theory, the Christian ethical dualist has anointed the covenant-breaker as the lawful master of the covenant-keeper in every area of life outside the four walls of the Christian church and the Christian family. But the consistent covenant-breaker is not about to honor these two fragile, judicially unprotected institutional boundaries, any more than Pontius Pilate honored the innocence of Jesus Christ against the Pharisees' court.

Here is the problem: Christian ethical dualists keep insisting, century after century, that the Pilates of this world are judicially reliable. The Pilates of this world are supposedly not in need of personal regeneration and the revelation of the Bible in order to carry out their lawful and judicially neutral cultural mandate in history. On the contrary, we are assured, they need only be faithful to "ancient Hindu, Chinese, and Greek writings," to cite Dr. Geisler's recommended primary sources.⁽¹²⁾ This is why Christian ethical dualists are at war with biblical civil law, biblical civil sanctions, and covenantal postmillennialism.⁽¹³⁾ Christian natural law theorists implicitly offer this daily prayer to God: "Thy kingdom not come, thy will not be done in earth as it is in heaven." (Unless, of course, they become really consistent and argue that natural law in principle should rule in heaven, too. Then their prayer becomes: "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done in heaven as it is on earth." We do not find such consistent ethical dualists.)

6. John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1959), I, pp. 72-76.

7. I have in mind all Protestant ethical dualists, from Martin Luther to Norman Geisler. Luther was amillennial; Geisler is premillennial-dispensational; both deny that God's kingdom can triumph in history through the Spirit-backed efforts of Christians. On Luther's ethical dualism between Christian ethics and civil ethics, see Charles Trinkaus, "The Religious Foundation of Luther's Social Views," in John H. Mundy, et al., Essays in Medieval Life (Cheshire, Connecticut: Biblo & Tannen, 1955); Gary North, "The Economics of Luther and Calvin," Journal of Christian Reconstruction, II (Summer 1975), pp. 76-89. On Geisler's equally dualistic ethics, see Norman L. Geisler, "Natural Law and Business Ethics," in Richard C. Chewning (ed.), Biblical Principles and Business: The Foundations (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1989), pp. 157-74. Geisler explicitly identifies the work of the law (Rom. 2:14) with natural law: ibid., p. 158. God holds all men responsible for their acts; hence, Geisler concludes, if some men do not know about God's revealed law, God cannot lawfully condemn them. "If there is no natural law," Geisler says, "God is unjust." Ibid., p. 160. Geisler misunderstands biblical justice. Natural law, natural reason, and natural revelation are sufficient to condemn every sinful person to hell and the lake of fire, but they are insufficient to enable people to build the kingdom of God. God's system of sanctions for the reprobate is simple and clear: "Heads, I win; tails, you lose." For proof, see Romans 9:10-21.

8. Gary North, Is the World Running Down? Crisis in the Christian Worldview (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1988).

9. The mind of Christ is imputed to His people at the time of their conversion, and it is progressively revealed in history, both individually and corporately, through their covenantal faithfulness. Anyone who denies this progressive, corporate, intellectual sanctification must also deny the progress of the church's various theological confessions. I know of no Christian who is willing publicly to deny the progress of the confessions at least through 1647 or 1788.

10. Geisler, "Natural Law and Business Ethics," p. 157.

11. The main exceptions historically were the New England Puritans of the first generation, 1630-60. On their theocratic legal theory, see Charles Lee Haskins, Law and Authority in Early Massachusetts: A Study in Tradition and Design (New York: University Press of America, [1960] 1985).

12. Geisler, "Natural Law and Business Ethics," p. 158.

13. Gary North, Millennialism and Social Theory (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990), ch. 12: "Our Blessed Earthly Hope in History."

"Classical" (Greco-Roman) Education vs. Christian Education

See this: Little Things Everywhere

• Classical Education [pdf] 
   
• Puritan Economic Experiments (Gary North)
  "I have done my best to present the Puritan economic world-and-life view in terms that can be readily grasped. I have also shown why their attempts to enforce this economic worldview by resorting to the sword of civil government was based, not on biblical revelation, but rather on a specific inherited intellectual tradition: early scholasticism. While it may seem strange that Protestants as radical as the New England Puritans were in fact followers of Thomas Aquinas in the field of economics, there were reasons for it. First, they were not familiar with the later scholastic tradition, which was much more free market oriented.¹ Second, the Puritans never fully broke with the theory of natural law, and it was the scholastics who had imported and baptized this humanist myth of ancient Greece and Rome. The Puritans did not attempt to rethink economics in terms of the Bible; instead, they simply imported medieval scholastic economic categories into their legislation regarding pricing."
  ¹ Murray N. Rothbard, "Late Medieval Origins of Free Market Economic Thought," Journal of Christian Reconstruction, II (Summer 1975), pp. 62-75. 
   
• The Puritan Experiment with Price Controls
  ["The Medieval Tradition" is also called "The Scholastic Tradition." It was an attempted synthesis between Jerusalem and Athens; importing Aristotle into Christianity.] 
   
• Classical Christian Education Is Like Marxist Christian Education, But a Lot More Subtle. 
   
• Why Christian Liberal Arts Higher Education Is So Liberal
   
• Classical Christian Education: The Real Deal
   
• The Trivium: Pagan vs. Christian
   
• The Classical Christian Curriculum: Marriage to a Corpse
   
• Nine Corrupt Pillars of Classical Greece
   
• The best way to teach history and literature
   
• Learning Latin is an academic fraud
   
• Charles Cochrane’s Christianity and Classical Culture
   
• The Liturgy of Sports
   
• What Protestant Evangelical Home School Parents Want: A Roman Catholic/Greek Curriculum
   
• The Ignorance of Christian Parents Who Want an Air-Brushed Classical Education for Their Children
   
• Chapter10 from CROSSED FINGERS: HOW THE LIBERALS CAPTURED THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
  "It could be argued that it was a similar overestimation of the benefits of classical education which helped to undermine the Puritans in the seventeenth century."

Powerful Essay by Gary North: Greek Mythology: The Myth of Classical Politics

American Vision / Gary DeMar

• Reviving the Rotten Corpse of Natural Law | July 18, 2011
• Natural Law vs. "Statutes and Judgments" | July 26, 2011
• Is a Return to Natural Law a Good Thing? | October 16, 2012
• Are General Revelation and Natural Law Substitutes for Biblical Law? | April 22, 2021
• The Inadequacy of Norman Geisler's Moral Law Theory | April 23, 2021

From Christian Reconstruction: What It Is, What It Isn't, by Gary DeMar

Norman L. Geisler, an ardent opponent of Christian Reconstruction, wants us to believe that "Government is not based on special revelation, such as the Bible." Instead, he maintains, "it is based on God's general revelation to all men.... Thus, civil law, based as it is in the natural moral law, lays no specifically religious obligation on man."¹ According to Geisler, civil governments are obligated to follow only natural law.

What is natural law? As one might expect, there are numerous definitions of natural law depending on which tradition one turns to. Should we follow the natural law system advocated by Cicero, Plato, Sophocles, Aristotle, Aquinas, Montesquieu, Blackstone, Grotius, Pufendorf, or Locke? After taking all of the systems into account, the following definition adequately represents the many natural law theories: "Natural law theory rests on the assumption that man has an innate quality - reason which enables him to perceive and live by natural laws which are 'self-evident truths' manifested in our natural surroundings."²

1. Geisler, "Dispensational Premillennial View of Law and Government," in J. Kerby Anderson, ed., Living Ethically in the 90s (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1990), p. 157.

2. Rex Downie, "Natural Law and God's Law: An Antithesis," The Christian Lawyer IV, 4 (Winter 1973). Republished in The Journal of Christian Reconstruction, V, Symposium on Politics, ed. Gary North (Summer 1978), pp. 81-2.

But there is a problem. While the above definition might work in a Christian context, where people generally understand (1) that rebellious man's autonomous reason should not be trusted, and (2) that there are certain absolute values. In non-Christian cultures, righteous natural law is an impossibility. The reason? As the late Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson declared, in expressing the implication of a consistent evolutionary theory of law and justice, "Nothing is more certain in modern society than the principle that there are no absolutes. . . ."³ Natural law depends on an existing theological framework that takes into account God's sovereignty and ethical absolutes.

In addition there are several other problems with a natural law ethical position. First, how does one determine what laws found in general revelation are natural laws that conform to God's will? Is it possible that Christian natural law advocates are using the Bible as a grid in the construction of their natural law ethic? But what grid is being used by non-Christians? In a consistently evolutionary system, there can be no natural law, only evolving law determined by those presently in power, usually the State.

Second, how do we get people to agree on the content of "natural law" and how these laws should apply? Do we opt for a lowest common denominator type of law like "Do good to all men"? Should we agree that murder is wrong but not war and capital punishment since each of these would violate the general law of "do good to all men"? Does natural law, for example, tell us that abortion is wrong?

Third, what if we find a common set of laws in "nature" that contradict the Bible? As we will see below, polygamy can be supported as a natural law ethic, as can slavery, since most nations from time immemorial have practiced both. Would we, if we followed natural law, give up monogamy for polygamy? Would we give up freedom for slavery?

3. Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951) at 508 in Eugene C. Gerhart, American Liberty and "Natural Law" (Boston, MA: The Beacon Press, 1953), p. 17. Time magazine commented July 23, 1951, pp. 67-68): "Whatever the explanation, Kentuckian Vinson's aside on morals drew no dissent from his brethren on the supreme bench. And no wonder. The doctrine he pronounced stems straight from the late Oliver Wendell Holmes, philosophical father of the present Supreme Court." Quoted in ibid., p. 165, note 2.

Fourth, what if a "natural law" agrees specifically with a biblical law that is religious? For example, nearly all nations have some prohibition against worshipping other gods (e.g., Daniel 3:1-30). After Nebuchadnezzar realized the error of his ways in requiring the Israelites to bow down to a false god, he then made a law that prohibited anyone from speaking "anything offensive against the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego" (v. 29). The penalty was pretty stiff: They "shall be torn limb from limb and their houses reduced to a rubbish heap" (v. 29). If Nebuchadnezzar turned to the Bible for the construction of this law, then his example would be proof that biblical law was applied to a non-Israelite nation. Since, as Geisler maintains, "civil law, based as it is in the natural moral law, lays no specifically religious obligation on man,"· Nebuchadnezzar must have been acting out the dictates of a natural law ethic. Therefore, magistrates, based on biblical law or natural law, could punish people for overtly religious crimes against Jehovah. But this is the one thing that natural law advocates do not want.

Fifth, natural law "does not furnish a specific consensus of ethical judgment."⁵ Ultimately, it comes down to "what the individual conscience dictates; and consciences differ."⁶ In order for natural law to function in any rational and workable way, there must be a generally held common belief system. When Catholic scholars, the foremost advocates of natural-law theory, made the State subject to natural law, there existed, in the words of Woodrow Wilson, a "common devotion to right.'" But what is the source of that "common devotion to right"? What if that "common devotion to right" is no longer accepted by rulers and the courts?

Sixth, and finally, let us suppose that we can derive a body of law from nature. This would only tell us what the law is, or actually, what might be. Can we determine what we ought to do from what is or might be right?

4. Geisler, "A Premillennial View of Law and Government," p. 157.

5. William Aylott Orton, The Liberal 1tadition (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1945), p. 95. Quoted in Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), p. 126.

6. Idem.

7. Quoted in Orton, idem.

Why have some Christians opposed biblical law in favor of "natural law"? Norman Geisler writes: "In brief, because not everyone accepts the Bible, but no one can avoid natural law, which is 'written on [the] hearts' of all men (Rom. 2:14-15). Only believers accept the Bible. But business must be done with unbelievers. Therefore, it is necessary for us to have some common ethical ground on which to engage in commercial transactions with them."⁸ There are numerous unproven assumptions here, but the two most glaring ones are (1) "not everyone accepts the Bible" and (2) "but no one can avoid natural law." Does everyone have to accept a standard before it is legitimate or it can be enacted into law? What if the majority of the people do accept the Bible? Would this mean that a nation could then implement biblical laws over natural laws? Aren't Christians told to "disciple the nations," to teach the nations all that Jesus commanded? Instead of avoiding the Bible, why not make it a point of discussion, showing unbelievers that the Bible has answers to all of life's problems. We could just as easily assert that not everyone accepts natural law (which is true). Does this then nullify Geisler's natural law ethic?

8. Norman L. Geisler, "Natural Law and Business Ethics," Biblical Principles and Business: The Foundations, ed. Richard C. Chewning (Colorado, CO: NavPress, 1989), p. 157.

Let us put Geisler's second assertion to the test. He would maintain that prohibitions against murder are natural laws. If "no one can avoid natural law," then why do people still murder? And when there was a prevailing biblical ethic in this nation, we had fewer murders, rapes, thefts, drug related crimes, illegitimate births, abortions, etc. People murder because they want to murder regardless what any law states, including biblical law and most certainly natural law. But because biblical law has sanctions attached to it - both temporal and eternal - there are more reasons not to murder under a system of biblical law than under natural law.

If the natural law is a law in the legal sense, what are its sanctions? ... [S]ince a law without punishment is vain, there must be another world to inflict it. Scholastics ... appear to depend on the Christian commonwealth, whose civil law is bound to reflect the natural law, to punish overt breaches. This was not unrealistic as a theory among Christian states in the days when rulers and inhabitants alike were at least technically Christian, but difficulties occurred when it came to expecting pagan kings to punish breaches of the natural law. This problem confronted the sixteenth-century Spanish Thomists, who were most unwilling to grant Christian kings rights of intervention in pagan kingdoms to punish "crimes against nature", and found themselves reduced to hoping for native kings to act in their stead in suppressing long-standing customs like human sacrifice.⁹

So then, it was expected that a Christian commonwealth would be necessary before such a natural law ethic could actually be implemented. No such trust could be expected of pagan kings since human sacrifice might still be considered normative by them.

9. Bernice Hamilton, "Some Arguments Against Natural Law Theories," Light on the Natural Law, ed. Illtud Evans (Baltimore, MD: Helicon Press, 1965), pp. 44-45.

We have had in our nation a prominently displayed biblical ethic that gave guidance to all citizens, Christians and non-Christians alike. America was a beacon to the world because it had an operating biblical ethic: In theory, everyone was treated as equal before the law, and that law was essentially biblical. In fact, there has been a concerted effort to move our nation away from an explicitly biblical ethical system. Regularly biblical laws are overturned and replaced with atheistic laws. This is true with sodomy and abortion. Take abortion. The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade rejected Christian teaching regarding abortion, and turned instead to "ancient attitudes." These "ancient traditions" were accepted over the "emerging teachings of Christianity," teachings that were thought to have influenced the adoption of the Hippocratic Oath. The Court surmised that the anti-abortion Hippocratic Oath would never have been adopted by the medical community if Christianity had not dominated the culture. Since "ancient religion did not bar abortion," as the majority opinion in Roe determined, therefore, abortion would have to be legalized. And what were these "ancient traditions"?: Greek and Roman legal traditions that rested on natural law.¹⁰

Would our nation have Sunday as a day of rest and worship if we adopted natural law over biblical law? Even the Constitution follows biblical and not natural law in its regard for Sunday as a special religious day: "If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law...." (Article I, section 7). Would a natural law ethic permit religious oath-taking? No! Florida no longer requires Notaries to affirm "so help me God" on their written oath of office. The Rev. Gerard LaCerra, chancellor of the Archdiocese of Miami understands the implications of such an action: "What are we supposed to base our commitments on if something like this is removed? The State?"¹¹ This is where natural law leads us.

10. Curt Young, The Least of These: What Everyone Should Know about Abortion (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1983), pp. 21-23.

11. "'God' Removed from Notaries' Oath," The Kansas City Star (February 18, 1990), p. 2A "The general situation in this country is that in all court proceedings witnesses may give testimony only after they have qualified themselves by taking an oath in the usual form ending with 'So help me God,' or by making an affirmation without that phrase. The provisions for witnesses generally apply also to jurors." Anson Phelps Stokes and Leo Pfeffer, Church and State in the United States, rev. one-vol. ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), p. 490.

Some assert, using natural law as their operating principle, that the "celebration of Eros and the unlimited pleasure of the body should be elevated to constitutional principle."12 Are any and all sexual practices legitimate under natural law? As nations become officially atheistic, a natural law ethic free from biblical influence becomes impossible to formulate, since natural law requires the existence of a Creator who has a law to deposit in the universe and in the heart of man. How can a natural law ethic be formulated when different traditions come to the formulating table with contrary presuppositions? Some are Christian, religious, agnostic, and atheistic. Those who believe in God at least have some common ground, although what god we have in common is another question altogether. When the agnostic and atheist come, the difficulties multiply in trying to prove a natural law theory, especially in the area of particulars.

12. Robert H. Bork, The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law (New York: The Free Press, 1990), p. 210.

The reason for this difficulty seems to be that for those who really believe in creation and the supreme dominion of God, the principle is too obvious to need proof; whereas for those who do not believe in creation there is no basis on which to build proof.¹³

A natural law basis for moral behavior can be developed only when there is an already-operating biblical ethic. William Blackstone, the great English Jurist of the eighteenth century, wrote that natural law must be interpreted in terms of the revealed law, the Bible. "If we could be as certain of the latter [natural law] as we are of the former [revealed law], both would have an equal authority; but, till then, they can never be put in any competition together."¹⁴ The Bible shaped Blackstone's conception of natural law, although he rarely referred to the Bible in his commentaries.¹⁵ But this in itself might be indicative of how pervasively a biblical ethic influenced him.

13. Gerard Kelly. Medico-Moral Problems (Dublin: Clonmore and Reynolds, 1955), p. 167. Cited in Daniel Callahan, Abortion: Law, Choice and Morality (New York: Macmillan, 1970), pp. 310-11.

14. William Blackstone, Commentaries on 1M Laws of England, 4 vols. (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press [1765] 1979), vol. 1, p. 17.

15. North, Political Polytheism, pp. 322-24.

Could there ever be a prohibition, for example, against polygamy based on natural law? While the Bible tolerated polygamy and established laws to govern it to protect the family unit, it never condoned it (Genesis 2: 18-24; Leviticus 18: 18; 1 Corinthians 7:2; 1 Timothy 3:2). Many in Israel, including such rulers as Gideon, David, and Solomon, adopted the polygamous practices of the surrounding nations. Of course, polygamy began soon after the fall (Genesis 4: 19, 23; 26:34; 28:9; 29: 15; 36:2; 1 Samuel 1:1-2). "Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people. In common law, the second marriage was always void (2 Kent, Com. 79), and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offence against society."¹⁶ Polygamy was denounced in Christian nations and practiced in non-Christian nations. Typically, "Asiatic" and "African" nations were non-Christian. Their practice of polygamy was "natural." With the advent of Christianity, monogamy was the practice and the Bible was the standard, not natural law.

The Supreme Court narrowly defined the legal protections of the First Amendment to exclude polygamy on the grounds that the practice was out of accord with the basic tenets of Christianity: "It is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and the civilization which Christianity has produced in the Western world."¹⁷ A year earlier the Court declared that "Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. . . . To call their advocacy a tenet of religion is to offend the common sense of mankind."¹⁸

So with the above in mind, what common ground do Christians and non-Christians have regarding the law? The evolutionist knows nothing of natural law. His system will not allow it. Law is an evolving principle like the universe itself. Roscoe Pound, a former Harvard law school dean, wrote "that 'nature' did not mean to antiquity what it means to us who are under the influence of evolution."¹⁹ In "antiquity," nature was thought to have been created by God and thus ran according to certain "natural laws" (even though that god was a pagan deity). What many Christians regard as "natural laws" are in reality God's eternal decree.

16. Reynolds v. United Stales, October 1878.

17. Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1 (1890).

18. Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 341-342 (1890). Cited in John Eidsmoe, The Christian Legal Advisor (Milford, MI: Mott Media, 1984), p. 150.

19. Roscoe Pound, Introduction to the Philosophy of Law (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, [1922] 1959), p. 31. Cited in John W. Whitehead, The Second American &Revolution (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, [1982] 1985, p. 48.

The introduction of the concept of "Nature" and natural law, derived from Hellenic philosophy, led to a departure from biblical faith. Natural law spoke of a self-contained system of its own inherent law. One of the products was Deism, which reduced God to the mechanic who had created "Nature," and now "Nature" functioned independently of God. The next step was to accept the ultimacy of "Nature" and to drop God entirely.²⁰

There was predictability in the created order because God decreed all that comes to pass. The created order, what is erroneously described as "nature,"²¹ was understood to be affected by the fall of man into sin. Special revelation was needed to correct the distortions of a creation disfigured by sin. With the advent of evolution, a new understanding of nature developed that supplanted the one of "antiquity." According to Roscoe Pound, "no current hypothesis is reliable, as ideas and legal philosophies change radically and frequently from time to time."²²

20. Rousas J. Rushdoony, The Mythology of Science (Nutley, NJ: The Craig Press, 1967), p. 97.

21. Rousas J. Rushdoony writes that " 'Nature' is simply a collective name for an uncollectivized reality; the myth of nature is a product of Hellenic philosophy." The Institutes of Biblical Law (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1973), p. 608.

22. Rene A Wormser, The Story of the Law (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1962), p. 485. Cited in Whitehead, The Second American Revolution, 48.

In addition to natural law, Geisler writes that "most premillenarians recognize that God has not left Himself without a witness in that He has revealed a moral law in the hearts and consciences of all men (Rom. 2:14-15)."²³ Geisler asserts that the heart and conscience are repositories for an ethical code. But the heart of man "is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?" Jeremiah 17:9; cf. Genesis 6:5; 8:21; Psalm 14:1; Proverbs 6:14; 12:20; 14:12). General revelation may give a very clear ethical system, but man suppresses "the truth" of general revelation "in unrighteousness" (Romans 1:18).

23. Geisler," A Dispensational Premillennial View of Law and Government," p. 156.

Since man's reason is imperfect, and may be swayed by his physical and social environment, the "truths" which men "know" have been various and self-contradictory. The law of nature has been quoted for every cause, from that of Negro slavery in the United States to that of red revolution in Paris. And it has often shifted ground - or man's interpretation has shifted - on such thorny questions (for example) as private property.²⁴

24. Herbert Agar, A Decl4ration of Faith (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1952), p. 134.

But isn't "the work of the Law written" on the heart actually the law? (Romans 2: 15). "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus" (Romans 2:14-16). The Gentiles, those without the written law found in the Bible, follow a law written on their hearts. It is the same law!

Second, general revelation contrary to Geisler, does lay a specifically religious obligation on man. According to Romans 1: 1832, which is the fullest biblical commentary on general revelation, men are guilty precisely because they "exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures" (v. 23). Where did they learn about "the incorruptible God"? "God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse" (vv. 19-20).

Third, general or natural revelation and special revelation (Scripture) have the same moral content. But because of man's sinfulness and the deceitfulness of his heart, he needs an infallible guide to read natural revelation. The Bible is that infallible guide. The only safeguard that sinful man has in not misinterpreting and misapplying natural revelation "is to test his interpretations constantly by the principles of the written word."²⁵

25. Cornelius Van Til, "Nature and Scripture," in The Infallible Word: A Symposium, eds. Ned B. Stonehouse and Paul Wolley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1953), p. 274.

Paul says nothing to suggest that there is a difference in the moral content of these two revelations, written and natural. The written law is an advantage over natural revelation because the latter is suppressed and distorted in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-25). But what pagans suppress is precisely the "work of the law" (2:14-15). Natural revelation communicates to them, as Paul says, "the ordinance of God" about "all unrighteousness" (1:29, 32). Because they "know" God's ordinance, they are "without excuse" for refusing to live in terms of it (1 :20). What the law speaks, then, it speaks "in order that all the world may be brought under the judgment of God" (3:19). There is one law order to which all men are bound, whether they learn of it by means of natural revelation or by means of special revelation. God is no respecter of persons here (2: 11). "All have sinned" (3:23) -- thus violated that common standard for the "knowledge of sin" in all men, the law of God (3:20).-

Reconstructionists take God's revelation seriously: the law of God found in both Testaments and general revelation.

Did God, as Geisler maintains, place only the Israelites under obligation to the moral demands of those commandments specifically delivered to the nation through Moses? Are Gentile nations ever condemned for violating laws specifically given to Israel? If we can find just one law that fits into this category, then all nations are obligated to submit to God's special written revelation, the Bible. I will summarize the argument for you:

God gives a series of instructions to Moses for the people: "You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes. You are to perform my judgments and keep My statutes, to live in accord with them" (Leviticus 18:3-4). God then issues a list of Canaanite practices that were prohibited. He commands the Israelites not to engage in incest, polygamy, adultery, child sacrifice, profaning Jehovah's name, homosexuality, or bestiality (vv. 6-23). The Mosaic law outlawed all such behavior and severely punished it. Immediately following the long list of prohibitions, God's word describes what disobedience will bring: "Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled. For the land has become defiled, therefore I have visited its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants. But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you; (for the men of the land who have been before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled); so that the land may not spew you out, should you defile it, as it has spewed out the nation which has been before you" (Leviticus 18:24-28).

26. Greg L. Bahnsen, "What Kind of Morality Should We Legislate?," The Biblical Worldview (October 1988), p. 9.

The transgression of the very law which God was revealing to Israel was the same law which brought divine punishment upon the Gentiles who occupied the land before them. "Israel and the Gentiles were under the same moral law, and they both would suffer the same penalty for the defilement which comes with violating it - eviction from the land."27

27. Greg L. Bahnsen, "For Whom Was God's Law Intended?," The Biblical Worldview (December 1988), p. 9.

The Offense of Christian Reconstruction

Gary North

Modern Christianity implicitly sings this hymn: "O, how hate I thy law; O, how hate I thy law; it is my consternation all the day." It is the offense of Christian Reconstruction that its promoters call upon all men to reconsider God's Bible-revealed law. This law is the only God-given, authoritative means of evaluation: self-evaluation first, and then the evaluation of everything else. God's law tells us what God thinks of the works of self-proclaimed autonomous man: "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away" (Isaiah 64:6). It is not a pretty self-portrait, so autonomous men refuse to look at it. Meanwhile, Christians today are afraid to mention its existence, out of concern for the sensibilities of autonomous men, with whom they have an unspoken alliance.⁷

7. See below, Chapter 9.

Nevertheless, covenant-breakers cannot escape the testimony of God in everything they think, see, and do. They know the truth, and they actively hinder it, to their own damnation. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold [back] the truth in unrighteousness;⁸ Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are dearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen (Romans 1:18-25).

8. Murray, Romans, I, pp. 36-37.

Each person is made in God's image. This is the common ground among men - the only common ground. We are born the rebellious sons of the Creator God. We are all of one blood: "God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation" (Acts 17:24-26). We are all born as God's disinherited children.

Christian Reconstructionists insist that there is no common ground among men other than this: the image of God. While all men know the work of the law (Romans 2:15), this knowledge is not enough to save them.⁹ It brings them under God's eternal wrath. They hinder in unrighteousness whatever truth they possess as men (Romans 1:18). The more consistent they are with their covenant-breaking presuppositions, the more they hate God's law and those who preach it. The more consistent they become with their rebellious view of God, man, law, and time, the more perverse they become. They prefer to worship creatures rather than the Creator:

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them (Romans 1:26-32).

9. Ibid., I, pp. 74-76.

This means that natural law theory is a myth, the creation of Hellenistic Greek philosophers to offer hope in a world in which the Greek city-state (the polis) had fallen to Alexander the Great and then to Rome. But if natural law theory is a myth, what can take its place? To what other standard can men safely cling if they reject the abiding authority of God's law in history? Christian Reconstructionists have an answer: none. This answer is hated, rejected, and ridiculed by Christians in our day. This answer is the offense of Christian Reconstruction.