Law and covenant: how relevant is the Old Testament legal code to today?
Monday, February 1st, 2010
Given the controversy surrounding the publication of alumnus Reuben Lindeman’s article in the last issue, it is appropriate to explore the relationship between the Old Testament legal code, or Mosaic law, and contemporary legal systems. There are some Christians, especially those labelling themselves reconstructionists or dominionists, who believe that our current polities are obligated to follow these laws. Rousas J. Rushdoony’s Institutes of Biblical Law is one of the major written works in this movement. However, the majority of Christians do not follow this approach, and for good reasons.
Many of the precepts of the Mosaic law are not too difficult to understand. For example: “When fire breaks out and catches in thorns so that the stacked grain or the standing grain or the field is consumed, he that kindled the fire shall make full restitution” (Exodus 22:6). This is based on a familiar principle: if someone damages another’s property, he or she must compensate that person for the loss. Our own legal systems make provision for this sort of case. So far so good.
But what do we do with, say, Deuteronomy 21:18-21?
If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.
When was the last time you heard of such a thing happening in Canada? Not only is this not found in our Criminal Code, but most of us would be outraged if this were ever to occur here. Yet it is part of the written word of God.
We know, of course, that some precepts of the law were superseded by the new covenant in Jesus Christ. We are no longer bound by the ceremonial law to which the ancient Israelites were bound. There is no temple because Jesus himself is our high priest who, through his once-for-all sacrifice for our sins, has made obsolete the sacrifices prescribed in the Mosaic law (Hebrews 8:1-7). The same is true of the dietary laws after Jesus pronounced all foods clean (Mark 7:14-19; Acts 10:9-16).
Yet the command for children to honour their parents is part of the Ten Commandments, the central and most enduring part of the Mosaic law (Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:16), which remains in effect and is in some cases strengthened through Jesus’ words (e.g., Mark 7:9-13). If we hope to make sense of the more baffling provisions of the Mosaic law, we should remember two things.
First, these laws were prescribed for a primitive tribal society lacking anything resembling the modern state apparatus with its legally differentiated institutions and offices. There were no separate or distinct law spheres. Criminal law, civil law and what might today be called canon law or church order were all of one piece. As there were no crown prosecutors, enforcement of the law was up to tribal elders and the men of the town. Murder was punished by the “avenger of blood,” a designated member of the victim’s family charged with this responsibility (Numbers 35). In the case of manslaughter, cities of refuge were set up to protect the manslayer from the avenger of blood (verses 22-28). Any effort to apply these laws to the present day must recognize that our complex, differentiated society is very unlike the undifferentiated society for which these laws were made.
Second, and more significantly, the Mosaic law was given to a specific community in a covenant relationship with God, who had called it into a special relationship with himself. As such its members were bound to keep the law he had given them through Moses. This already indicates that we cannot simply take a code applicable to the ancient Hebrews and assume that it applies in modern states such as Canada or the United States. Although many American Christians are tempted to view their own country through the lenses of biblical Israel, a proper interpretation of scripture must apply the promises of the old covenant, not to a contemporary political community, but to the people of the new, whom the apostle Peter calls “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people” (I Peter 2:9).
As God’s people we are bound by the words of the apostle Paul: “Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbour has fulfilled the law” (Romans 13:8).
The Crown reserves the right to edit or remove any comment that:
- is libelous, threatening, obscene, or constitutes hate speech
- directly and deliberately insults other posters
- is promotional or commercial in nature
Furthermore, The Crown reserves the right to reproduce the comment in the print edition of the newspaper.
- Login to post comments
Comments
A Complement to Koyzis' Article
In studying the question of government and the law of God, I have learned about several different extreme positions. It appears some are concerned I may be arguing for an Old Testament society reborn in modern times. This is a legitimate concern and I appreciate Prof. Koyzis directing his article to address it. My concern is with the opposite extreme: that people may be disregarding God’s Word when it comes to civil government. Since Prof. Koyzis has addressed those who would hold to the supremacy of an Old Testament, Israel-like nation, what is left to consider is the positive place the Old Testament law has in making civil decisions today.
First, what is meant by “law”? According to the Westminster Confession Chapter 19, there are three types of law referenced in the Old and New Testament: Ceremonial, Moral, and Civil. The ceremonial law we all agree was pointing directly to the work of Christ on the cross in salvation. The moral law pertains to our hearts and right worship and obedience to God in everything. When talking about the civil law in the Bible, I am referring to that law God has given through His Word which pertains to the proper actions of people towards other people and their regulation by appropriate authorities.
Through dialogue with Prof. Koyzis, I realize that he and I agree on almost everything. We both agree with Calvin (Calvin’s Institutes Book IV Chapter 20) that the laws pertaining to justice are based on the greater law of love (Charity). Therefore a country should make laws based on those of the civil law in the Old Testament without needing the actual laws written in the Old Testament. In fact, if a country’s civil authorities didn’t assume this perspective, they would have to insist the country be as similar to old Israel as possible, using sheep and oxen and such so that the laws may be appropriately applied.
I hope we also agree that right and wrong in the absolute sense is defined by God in His unchangeable very nature and is expressed to us through His Word. If this is true, then when God defines certain things as crimes against others they must still be crimes against others today; similarly what God does not define as a crime against others is still not a crime. If God does not change and He is loving and just, it follows that just and loving punishments/discipline He prescribes for different types of crimes in His Word must still be the most loving way of disciplining today.
I have muddied the waters in past discussions in failing to make an important distinction: sin vs. crime. Sin is that which is thought or done against God. Crime is actions which are to the detriment of others and punishable by civil authorities. Since God commands us to love our neighbour, it follows that all crimes are also sins. What also follows is that not every sin is a crime. If the Old Testament and the New Testament are read with this in mind, it is easy to see that God has given the government to be concerned with crime whereas all that which enters into the realm of sin against God, God judges using divine methods.
So what determines if something is a crime? This can only be answered if we look at the law of God pertaining to civil law. The Westminster Confession Chapter 19 section 4 states “…[God] gave Judicial laws [to Israel], which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.” This means God’s Word is still the standard for evaluating what are crimes even though we should not follow the letter of the civil law set out for Israel. The statement “general equity” is also a recognition that the spirit of the Old Testament civil law is equitable not only in what would be considered a loving and just law, but also considering what a loving and just discipline for disobeying it would be. The particulars of a crime and its appropriate punishment are intrinsically linked in God’s Word and there is no Biblical reason for changing this conception today.
This is why we must remember the other crucial responsibility of government: to protect pure religion (see Calvin’s Institutes, same section). If a government ceases to base its laws on God’s Word, then licentiousness, corruption and injustice rule the day. Proverbs 29:18: “Where there is no revelation, the people cast off restraint; But happy is he who keeps the law.” There are so many examples of this in our own country: adultery is commonplace, homosexuality is not only considered equal, but glorified in some provinces (BC in particular), thieves are sent to jail where they are raped and mistreated and those they stole from are often not even compensated, and many, many more injustices. It is through a proper application of God’s Word that we may know how to help civil authorities bring back good, loving discipline. Only we as Christians can bring the light of God’s Word to bear on our country’s deviation from true justice. If we do, it may once more be said of Canada, “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice” Proverbs 29:2.
We should all be concerned that discipline, when it is necessary, should bring about an appropriate response such that wickedness is restrained and righteousness may flourish. This was the purpose of God’s discipline in Israel, and should still be the purpose of discipline today. The disconnect we see today is based on the biblically offensive assumptions that man is basically good and more advanced today so that the way we think and react has “evolved” from the older, less sophisticated past societies. This modern disconnect has led to the belief that harsher disciplines are “barbaric” and creating laws to protect people’s feelings from being offended are more “civilized”. The truth is quite different. People may wear different clothes on the outside, but in truth our skin and everything under it is still the same “barbaric” nature it was following the Fall. The law was given to Israel to restrain the human nature. The laws and their punishments made today can still continue to accomplish this if it they are founded in the Word of God and applied in the fear of the Lord.
In short, we should avoid the pitfall of trying to read the civil law in the Bible as the permanent literal prescription for civil law for all time. Likewise we should avoid the opposite pitfall of failing to read God’s civil law as examples of proper application of the law of love both for appropriate laws and also appropriate punishments. My personal thought of how this might look in civil laws today would be to have a sort of catechism of law whereby each law and its appropriate punishments are stated with a series of Bible verses footnoted to denote where their justification comes from in the Word of God. While a separation of Church and State is healthy, a separation of God and State is disastrous.
Thorough Enjoyment