Part Three: Exposition of
the Law of God
Introduction
A. At this point we return to the normative perspective, as is traditional in Reformed ethics, asking "What does God's Word tell us to do?" Remember, however, that other approaches are also legitimate. I shall from time to time bring light from other perspectives to our study of the Law.
B.
The Decalogue in the Context of the
History of Redemption.
1.
Limitations of the Decalogue as summary
of the law.
a)
It is not the only summary, nor the one
most recent in the history of redemption. Cf. Eccl.
(b)
Like the love-commandment, the Decalogue
is not sufficient in itself to define biblical morality.
(1)
Even within the Old Testament, the
Decalogue is supplemented by the Book of the Covenant (Exodus 21-24), case law,
and application through non-legal material.
(2)
The New Testament provides necessary
correlations between the law and the redemptive work of Christ.
(3)
Therefore, to define murder and adultery,
e.g., we must consult all of Scripture, not just the Decalogue.
(4)
The Decalogue itself announces that it
must be seen in a context of redemptive reality.
(a)
It begins with the announcement of the
divine name.
(i)
The law, therefore, is not authoritative
merely because it happens to be true, but because of its author.
(ii)
We obey the law because of who God is
[cf. Part Two, I.A. Leviticus 18:2, etc.].
(iii)
In the law, God reveals himself, his own
character, as
(b)
It then summarizes the history of
redemption.
(i)
The ground of obedience is not simply
that the law is a command, but that God has redeemed his people. Gratitude.
(ii)
Note how grace precedes law. Obedience is
done in the context of grace.
b)
Some elements of the Decalogue are
limited to its historical situation.
(1)
The historical prologue, Ex. 20:2.
(2)
Reference to
2.
Importance of the Decalogue as summary of
the law.
a)
Church-historical importance: Reformed
catechisms traditionally deal with ethics in a kind of exposition of the
Decalogue. Reformed systematic theology has also followed this procedure. Thus,
this form is convenient for capturing what reformed people have most wanted to
say about ethics.
b)
Uniqueness of the occasion on which it
was promulgated [C.1., below].
(1)
Fulfillment of the promise of
deliverance.
(2)
Holiness of the mountain, thunders,
lightnings, cloud, trumpet.
(3)
This is the only time that the people of
God as a whole gathered together and heard directly the divine voice.
(4)
This is the "day of the assembly"
(Deuteronomy
(5)
This is the occasion upon which Moses was
chosen as the mediator of God's law (Exodus 20:19ff.).
c)
Uniqueness of its function in the
covenant structure.
(1)
The Decalogue is the first written
"covenant document" (Kline), the seed out of which grew the biblical canon as a
whole. As a seed, we expect it to contain the whole biblical message in
significant summary.
(2)
As the covenant document, it functions as
the basic constitution of
d)
Uniqueness of its publication: "written
with the finger of God" (Exodus 31:18; Deuteronomy
e)
Though the Decalogue is supplemented, it
is nevertheless singled out in the later history of redemption as having a
distinctive function within the canon: Deuteronomy 4:13, 5:1-27, 10:1-5;
Matthew 5-7 (much commentary on Decalogue here), Matthew 19:16ff., parallels;
Romans 13:9.
f)
The basic requirements of the Old
Testament law are not abrogated by the New Covenant [Part Two, I.D.5.], and the
Decalogue does embody, on the whole, the "basic requirements."
g)
Hermeneutical principle: Generally when
we seek light on a biblical doctrine, we look first at the passages where that
doctrine is most focally and clearly presented. The Old Testament, on the
whole, is more concerned than the New with setting forth our law (ethics, law).
The Torah is the heart of Old Testament law, and the Decalogue is the heart of
the Torah. Redemptive-historical change, of course, presents an argument
against such focus on the Old Testament [Part Two, I.], but with due allowance
for such change, considerations of hermeneutics do argue for it.
3.
Conclusion: The limitations of this or
any summary must be frankly acknowledged. Consideration of the Decalogue is not
the only way to summarize biblical ethics, nor is it, in every sense,
the best way. Yet, it is one useful way, and, in some respects, it is uniquely
useful.
B.
Decalogical Hermeneutics.
1.
Breadth of the Commandments.
a)
The problem: The Westminster Larger Catechism, Question and Answer 99, presents
some rules for "right understanding" of the Decalogue which seem rather strange
in contrast with our normal concept of "grammatico-historical" exegesis.
(1)
Rule 1 states that the Decalogue requires
"the utmost perfection of every duty" and forbids "the least degree of every
sin". But it appears that the Decalogue deals only with ten areas of obligation
and does not mention many others. Does the Decalogue really serve as a complete
Christian ethic?
(2)
Rule 4: ". . . where a duty is commanded,
the contrary sin is forbidden; and, where a sin is forbidden, the contrary duty
is commanded . . . ."
(a)
In normal logic and hermeneutics, we do
not deduce commands from prohibitions and vice-versa.
"Keep of the grass." does not ordinarily imply that you ought to give some
positive encouragement to the growth of the grass.
(b)
Often, it is not clear what "the contrary
sin" or "the contrary duty" is. If I say, "Don't write your name on the first
line of the paper.", what is the "contrary duty"? To write someone else's name?
To write your own name on the second line or some other line? To write nothing
at all? The "contrary duty," it would seem, must be mentioned specifically; we
cannot simply deduce it from the prohibition.
(3)
Question and Answer 108: The second
commandment, we are told, requires such things as administration of the
sacraments, religious fasting, vows. How are such duties to be found in the
language of the commandment, granted the principles of "grammatico-historical"
exegesis?
b)
Response: Present-day use of these
principles, without explanation, is bound to cause confusion among those
trained in "scientific exegesis". The writers of the catechism did not
anticipate the distinctions which we, today, would consider necessary. Yet, the
point they were making was not only valid, but important, and still is today.
The catechism is looking at the sins described in the light of the whole Bible,
and finds that when the whole Bible is consulted, each sin referred to in the
Decalogue includes all the others (cf. James 2:10).
(1)
The first commandment: "other gods"
include Mammon (money, Matthew 6:24), or anything else which competes with God
for our ultimate loyalty. Since any sin is disloyalty to God, violation of any
commandment is also violation of the first. Thus, all sin is violation of the
first commandment. The commandment forbids all sins.
(2)
The second commandment, similarly: the
sin of worshipping a graven image is in worshipping anything (or worshipping by
means of anything) of human devising. "Worship" can be a broad
ethical concept in Scripture as well as a narrowly cultic one (cf. Romans
12:1f.). Any sin involves following our own purposes instead of God's, false
worship.
(3)
In the third commandment, the "name of
the Lord" can refer to God's entire self-revelation; and disobedience of any
sort to that revelation can be described as "vanity".
(4)
The Sabbath commandment demands godly use
of our entire calendar—the six days is to do God's will, any ungodly use of
time may be seen as transgression of the fourth commandment.
(5)
"Father and mother" in the fifth
commandment can be read broadly to refer to all authority [see later
discussion] and even the authority of God himself (Malachi 1:6) so that all
disobedience to God is violation of the fifth commandment.
(6)
Jesus interprets the sixth commandment to
prohibit unrighteous anger (Matthew 5:22) because of its disrespect for life.
Since all sin manifests such disrespect for life, all sin violates the sixth
commandment. It would not be wrong either to include a respect for spiritual
life within the scope of this commandment.
(7)
Adultery is frequently used in Scripture
as a metaphor (indeed, more than a metaphor) for idolatry, Israel being
Jehovah's unfaithful wife. The marriage figure is a prominent biblical
description of the covenant order. Breaking the covenant at any point is
adultery.
(8)
Withholding tithes and offerings—God's
due—is stealing (Malachi 3:8). Thus, to withhold any honor due to God falls
under the same condemnation.
(9)
"Witnessing" in Scripture is something
you are, more than something you do [see later discussion]. It involves
not only speech, but actions as well. It is comprehensive.
(10) Coveting,
like stealing, is involved in all sin. Sinful acts are the product of the
selfish heart. There is, therefore, a unity to sin as there is a unity to
righteousness (=love).
c. Some principles:
1)
The Catechism seems to assume the principle
that proper applications of the commandments are aspects of their meaning.
2)
It understands the concepts of the
Decalogue (adultery, murder, etc.) in their full biblical meaning, bringing in
data from all Scripture.
3)
It recognizes that each commandment is
part of a broad system of commands, each of which takes the others into
account.
4)
The system as a whole requires primarily
heart-obedience (the law of love). If your heart
hates murder, it will motivate you positively to seek your neighbor's health.
2.
Narrowness of the Commandments:
Even though each commandment includes all the others, the commandments are not
all synonymous. Each looks at our total obligation from a different perspective,
in different terms. Lying is not precisely the same thing as stealing.
a)
There is a dangerous tendency in some
ethical writing to eliminate specific meaning in favor of general meaning.
(1)
E.g., "Adultery is not mere abstinence
from extra-marital sex, but is really whole-souled fidelity to God;" "The sixth
commandment tells us to promote God's eternal life, and so has no bearing on
abortion."
(2)
That is unwarranted.
(a)
The general has no meaning apart from the
specific. What is "spiritual chastity" if it does not entail any
specific behavior?
(b)
Reducing the specifics to the general
brings in all the problems associated with situation ethics—a general law of
love with no specific meaning.
(c)
You can never refute a proposed
specific application of a commandment merely by referring to its general
meaning. E.g., you can never refute an application of the eighth commandment to
the property tax simply by saying that the commandment deals with our
stewardship before God. To refute a specific application, you must argue specifically.
It is simply not true that God is concerned only about broad redemptive
realities and not about narrow "details." (Cf. John Murray's comments on this.)
b)
Therefore, every commandment has both a
broad and a narrow meaning: The eighth commandment does teach that we should
not rob God of his honor; but it also teaches that we should not eat donuts
without paying.
3.
Summary.
a)
The commandments represent ten
perspectives on the whole ethical life. (Cf. our earlier "triangle." These
relations would be pictured as a decagon, if I could draw one.)
b)
Each commandment teaches the whole
of our obligation from one particular point of view.
c)
Each commandment also teaches many
specific obligations which follow from the whole ("equal ultimacy of the one
and many").
d)
The Larger Catechism can be defended,
then, by saying that the commandments do encompass a great multitude of
specifics, and that any specific commandment can be shown to be an application
of any of the ten. However, I am not enthusiastic about the Cathechism's method
of presentation. It seems to move between breadth and narrowness without a
clearly persuasive principle of organization and derivation.
C.
Summary of the Decalogue in Chart Form.
(Don't take this too seriously—JF).
Although each commandment involves all the
others, they do differ from one another in "perspective" as we have indicated.
There is a progress from one commandment to the next that can be summarized in
the following scheme. The rationale for the scheme will be explained in the
discussions of the individual commandments. "I" refers to the first
commandment, "II" to the second, etc.
1.
Our Obligation to Love the Lord
(I-III).
a)
Father—heart Worship only the true
God (I)—Situational perspective:
b)
Son—word Worship him only on the basis of his
word (II)—Normative perspective:
c)
Spirit—deed Worship him only through
the right use of the word (III)—Existential Perspective: (The first
three commandments manifest a trinitarian structure: God, the Word, our
Spirit-induced response.)
2.
Our Obligation to Keep God's Ordinances
(IV-X).
a)
Situational perspective: obedience in deed.
(1)
Positively.
(a)
The creation ordinances of labor, rest,
and worship (IV)
(b)
The creation ordinance of the family (V).
(2)
Negatively.
(a)
Vs. contempt for man's life (VI)
(creation ordinances of worship and family).
(b)
Vs. contempt for marriage (VII) (creation
ordinance of the family).
(c)
Vs. contempt for property (VIII)
(creation ordinance of labor).
b)
Normative perspective: obedience in word
(IX).
c)
Existential perspective: obedience in the
heart (X).
D.
Biblical Prefaces to the Law.
1.
The Presence of God
(Exodus 19): At Mount Sinai, when the covenant was made and Israel was set
apart as God's people, the whole people of God heard the voice of God directly,
without the mediation of prophecy or writing. This event is unique in
redemptive history. [Cf. above, A.2.b.]
a)
The phenomena.
(1)
Thunder, lightning, Exodus 19:16, 20:18.
(2)
Thick cloud, darkness, Exodus 19:16,
20:21; Deuteronomy 4:11.
(3)
The trumpet, Exodus 19:16, 20:18: not the
ram's horn (v. 13), but something else which grows in volume as God comes near.
(4)
Smoke and fire, Exodus 19:18: "to the
heart of heaven," Deuteronomy 4:11. Apparently something enormous, unearthly.
The fire is emphasized, Deuteronomy 4:33, 36, 5:4f.—perhaps reminiscent of
Exodus 3:2, or even Genesis 15:17 (cf. Genesis 15:12).
(5)
The quake, Exodus 19:18.
(6)
The voice itself, Exodus 19:9;
Deuteronomy 4:12, 33, 36, 5:23ff.
b)
Their purpose (cf. general purposes of
miracles, connotations of dunamis, teras, semeion parallel with Lordship attributes).
(1)
Exhibition of divine power: note emphasis
on the greatness (Exodus 19:18), the loudness (19:20), the enormity of the fire
(Deuteronomy 4:11), the uniqueness of the experience (Deuteronomy 4:32-36), the
revelation of God's greatness and glory (Deuteronomy 5:24).
(2)
Eliciting of fear.
(a)
Terror of God's presence in
judgment—Exodus 19:16, 20:18f.; Deuteronomy 5:5, 25; Hebrews 12:18-21. This is
not presented as the purpose of God in giving the signs, but as the actual
result. Doubtless God intended the result, but the emphasis in describing the
divine intention is on other points; see below.
(b)
Sanctifying reverence—Exodus 20:20;
Deuteronomy 4:10, cf. Deuteronomy 4:24.
(3)
Instruction, Deuteronomy 4:36, cf.
4:10—closely related to ii.b).
(a)
Confirming the mediator, Exodus 19:9,
20:18f.; (cf. "signs of the apostles").
(b)
Confirming the content of the law, Exodus
20:22ff., Deuteronomy 4:10.
(c)
Confirming the certainty of God's mercy
and judgment, Deuteronomy 4:24 and 33 in context.
(d)
Confirming the identity of God himself,
Deuteronomy 4:36 in context of 35.
c)
Since the New Testament Church is one
body with Old Testament Israel, the assembly at Sinai is part of our own
community memory (cf. Exodus 19:6; I Peter 2:9), from which we also ought
to take instruction. We have, however, an even greater memory, a greater vision
of God in Christ (Hebrews 12:18-29), which has a greater, but parallel purpose.
Hebrews reminds us also that "our God is a consuming fire," 12:29.
2.
The Name of the Lord
(Exodus 20:1): As God had earlier identified himself to Moses as "I am" and "Yahweh" (Exodus 3:14f.), so now he
identifies himself to all Israel as the Lord of the covenant.
a)
A Personal Revelation.
(1)
"Yahweh"
is first of all a proper name, the name of a person. The covenant law,
therefore, is not based merely on abstract principles; ultimately, it is the
will of a person. The law reveals him to us by telling us what pleases
and displeases him.
(2)
"The Lord thy God": Israel itself
is involved.
(a)
In effect, Israel is part of God's own
name—God is thy God, God of Israel. Note the profundity, then, of God's
covenant identification with this people. God identifies himself with them and vice-versa. Such love for sinners!
(b)
Singular pronouns are used for Israel
throughout the Decalogue. This gives a sense of unity to the people and
intimacy to their relation with God.
(c)
The covenant law, therefore, is not an
abstract legal document, but a loving self-communication between the Lord and
the people he has chosen for himself.
b)
A Meaningful Revelation: "Yahweh" is not only a proper name, but,
like most near-eastern proper names, it says something about the person named. The
meaning of "Yahweh" is rather
difficult to ascertain, but a survey of the emphases found in contexts where
the name is prominent suggests that the following ideas are important
("Lordship Attributes"):
(1)
Control: God rescued Israel from Egypt in
such a way that displayed his control over all things in heaven and earth.
(2)
Authority: He speaks in his law the word
which must be obeyed without question, which transcends all other loyalties,
which governs all areas of life.
(3)
Presence: He identifies himself with his
covenant people, primarily for blessing, but also for judgment. "I am with
you." [Cf. a., above].
3.
The Rule of God
(Relation of Blessing and Obedience) (Exodus 20:2, etc.).
a)
Blessing Precedes Obedience (priority of
sovereign grace).
(1)
Emphasis on the making of covenant following
divine victory: Exodus 20:2; Deuteronomy 1:1-5, 4:44-49, 29:1.
(2)
Emphasis upon grace as the source of
victory: Deuteronomy 4:20, 6:10-12, 7:6-8, 8:17, 9:1-6.
(3)
Emphasis on sovereign election:
Deuteronomy 7:6-8, 10:14-17.
(4)
Since we have been chosen as God's
people, we must obey, Deuteronomy 27:9ff.
(5)
Since God has delivered us and blessed
us, we must obey, Deuteronomy 6:20-25, 10:21-11:7, 8:1-6, 11-18, 29:2-9;
Leviticus 19:36f., 20:8, 22:31ff.
(6)
God addresses Israel in the singular:
emphasizing divine intimacy, individual responsibility.
Excursus: Does
this mean that the law is given only to Israel, since it is based on
Israel's distinctive election from among all the nations? No; it means that
this particular covenantal formulation of the law is given only to
Israel. The law itself is given to every man in nature an conscience (Romans
1-2), and the law given through nature and conscience is described as "the work
of the law" (Romans 2:15), that is, ordinances agreeing in content with the law
given through Moses. It is also clear that rulers in heathen nations were
expected to rule justly, that is, in accord with God's law. See Bahnsen, Theonomy, 339-364. The Mosaic Law, then,
is a formulation of that law that is
known to all people and which binds all people. It is, however, a particular
application of that law to a very "peculiar" people. It is not easy to sort out
what is generally applicable from what applies only to Israel specifically [cf.
Part Two, I.D.5-6.]; but it would be wrong to assume that since the law is a
redemptive revelation its demands may not be proclaimed to unbelievers. Quite
the contrary.
b)
Blessing Follows Obedience.
(1)
If you obey, then you are the
people of God. Exodus 19:5. Interesting and paradoxical contrast with
Deuteronomy 27:9ff. The point is that obedience and salvation are inseparable.
You can't have either without the other.
(2)
Promise of prosperity, victory, to those
who obey: Exodus 20:6, 12, 23:22-33; Deuteronomy 5:32f., 6:1-3, 17-19, 8:7-10,
11:10-12, 13:18, Psm. 1. Note NT parallels: Matt. 6:33, Mark 10:29, 1 Cor.
3:21, Eph. 6:1-3, 1 Tim. 4:8. Grace leads to works, which lead to more
blessing.
I.
The First Commandment:
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
A.
Theological Setting.
1.
The Positive Focus.
a)
WLC 104: What are the duties required in
the first commandment?
A. The duties required
in the first commandment are, the knowing and acknowledging of God to be the
only true God, and our God; and to worship and glorify him accordingly, by
thinking, meditating, remembering, highly esteeming, honouring, adoring,
choosing, loving, desiring, fearing of him, believing him, trusting, hoping,
delighting, rejoicing in him; being zealous for him; calling upon him, giving
all praise and thanks, and yielding all obedience and submission to him with
the whole man; being careful in all things to please him, and sorrowful when in
any thing he is offended; and walking humbly with him.
b)
Love.
(1)
Despite the negative formulation of the
commandment, it actually commands that most positive of Christian virtues,
love. [Cf. Part Two I.D.9; III.C.3.f.].
(a)
It comes at the point where the
suzerainty treaty would demand love by the vassal for the suzerain.
(b)
Its meaning is synonymous with the
covenantal sense of love: exclusive covenant loyalty.
(2)
Relations to context.
(a)
Love, therefore, is the grateful response
of the vassal to the saving mercies of the Lord described in the historical
prologue: here, thankfulness for the redemption from Egypt.
(b)
This love, in turn, becomes the motive
for obeying all the rest of the law.
(c)
It provides a summary of our
obligation—cf. Deuteronomy 6:4ff.
(3)
New Testament realization: Matthew
10:34ff., 19:16-30, 16:24; Philippians 3:7f. One of the strongest proofs of the
deity of Christ is that he demanded the same absolute loyalty that Jehovah
demanded in the first commandment.
c)
Worship: Exclusive
loyalty to a god means exclusive worship.
(1)
Narrow focus: cultic purity. Sacrifice,
prayer, etc., made exclusively to the Lord.
(2)
Broad focus: ethical purity.
(a)
Pure worship always involves coming
before God with clean hands and pure heart (Psalm 24:4; cf. Luke 1:74; Acts
24:14; II Timothy 1:3, etc.).
(b)
Cultic terminology (‘abad, latreuein, douleuein, leitourgein) (especially outside the Bible, but inside it as well)
for service in general, whether religious or secular. Thus, it is not
inherently bound to cultic use.
(c)
Thus, the language of worship [above; and
also the language of priesthood, sacrifice, temple, holiness, cleansing] is
used in Scripture for ethical purity in general: Matthew 6:24; Romans 12:1; James
1:27; Hebrews 12:28. Note also the use of these terms in connection with Paul's
mission: Romans 1:9; Philippians 2:17. "Worship in the broad sense."
(d)
The exclusiveness of our worship
involves exclusive loyalty to God's law—this law and no other; cf. discussion
of the sufficiency of Scripture for ethics. Deuteronomy 6:1-9, 10:12-16.
(e)
Thus, the first commandment has both a
narrow and a broad meaning [cf. Introduction, B.]. In one sense, all sins are
violations of the first commandment, for all sins are defections from pure
covenant loyalty.
d)
Consecration:
Covenant loyalty means that God's people and all their possessions are to be
set apart to him.
(1)
Note the many laws in the Pentateuch
involving the sanctification of individuals and things:
(a)
Redemption ("sanctification") of the
firstborn, Exodus 13.
(b)
Ransom of individuals, Exodus 30:1ff.
(c)
Consecration of the Nazirite, Numbers 6.
(d)
Consecration of first fruits, Deuteronomy
26.
(2)
Note especially those institutions
defining covenant membership:
(a)
Circumcision, Genesis 17:9ff.; Leviticus
12:3.
(b)
Passover, Exodus 12; Numbers 9;
Deuteronomy 16.
(c)
Sabbath [see below, IV.].
(3)
Comments:
(a)
Covenant loyalty (love, worship) must
take concrete form. One must not only love God inwardly and seek to obey;
rather, he must confess the Lord openly by identifying himself as belonging to
God.
(b)
Since we are fallen, this consecration
involves confession of our sins and reception of God's atoning grace.
(c)
In confessing the Lord, we also identify
ourselves with his people. There is no such thing as a merely private
allegiance to God.
(d)
Note also the importance of recognizing
ourselves as stewards, recognizing that God owns all and we only hold in
trust.
(e)
In the New Testament too, the elements of
public confession, sacraments, identification with God's people, stewardship
are emphasized.
(f)
More broadly, Scripture teaches that our
chief end is to glorify God (see earlier lectures).
2.
The Negative Focus.
a)
WLC 105: What are the sins forbidden in
the first commandment?
A. The sins forbidden
in the first commandment are, Atheism, in denying or not having a God;
Idolatry, in having or worshipping more gods than one, or any with or instead
of the true God; the not having and avouching him for God and our God; the
omission or neglect of any thing due to him, required in this commandment;
ignorance, forgetfulness, misapprehensions, false opinions, unworthy and wicked
thoughts of him; bold and curious searching into his secrets; all profaneness,
hatred of God; self-love, self-seeking, and all other inordinate and immoderate
setting of our mind, will, or affections upon other things, and taking them off
from him in whole or in part; vain credulity, unbelief, heresy, misbelief,
distrust, despair, incorrigibleness, and insensibleness under judgments,
hardness of heart, pride, presumption, carnal security, tempting of God; using
unlawful means, and trusting in lawful means; carnal delights and joys;
corrupt, blind, and indiscreet zeal; lukewarmness, and deadness in the things
of God; estranging ourselves and apostatizing from God; praying, or giving any
religious worship, to saints, angels, or any other creatures; all compacts and
consulting with the devil, and hearkening to his suggestions; making men the
lords of our faith and conscience; slighting and despising God and his commands;
resisting and grieving of his Spirit, discontent and impatience at his
dispensations, charging him foolishly for the evils he inflicts on us; and
ascribing the praise of any good we either are, have, or can do, to fortune,
idols, ourselves, or any other creature.
b)
Why is the law so negative? All the
commandments except the fourth and fifth are framed as prohibitions. (Note,
however, strong emphasis on love and obedience at the end of the second.)
(1)
As we have seen, a negative formulation
does not rule out positive applications. Positive or negative form is more a
matter of phrasing than of meaning. But why all the negative phrasing?
(2)
The negative focus reflects the reality
of sin and temptation. Obedience to God always involves saying no—to Satan, to
the world, to our own lusts. The negative formulations call our attention to
the fact that this is a fallen world, and, at every point, we must be prepared
to do battle with sin.
(3)
The very notion of "exclusive" covenant
loyalty requires negations for its exposition. To love God exclusively involves
denying that special love to anyone else. As God's electing love makes
distinctions among men, so we must distinguish among the gods.
(4)
Specifically: the negations call for:
(a)
Repentance—turning away from sin
to Christ.
(b)
Self-denial—taking up our cross
and following Christ.
(c)
Separation—breaking away from all
associations which compromise our loyalty to him.
(5)
Remarkably enough, the New Testament is
no less negative in its emphasis. Cf. the Sermon on the Mount. Even love, the
most positive of Christian virtues, is expounded negatively in
I Corinthians 13.
(6)
You see how important it is to preach
negatively. Many object to this, finding in any criticism or prohibition a lack
of love. But truth must be proclaimed in contrast with error, good in contrast
with evil if it is to be presented clearly and relevantly to the real needs of
people.
c)
From what must we separate?
(1)
From false gods ("No other gods before
[or besides] me"): Moloch, Baal, Asherah, etc. (Deuteronomy 6:14f., 12:29-32).
Cf. the third temptation of Jesus, Matthew 4:9f.
(2)
From giving ultimate devotion to
something less than God: Mammon-money, (Matt. 6:24), possessions (Luke
12:16-21) [Col. 3:5 says greed is idolatry], politics (Dan. 2:21),
pleasures-entertainment (2 Tim. 3:4), food (Phil. 3:19), self (Deut. 8:17, Dan.
4:30).
(3)
From false ideas of God
(a)
Limiting him to a narrowly religious
sphere.
(b)
Supposing that our works might gain his
favor.
(c)
Sentimentalist religion: a god who does
not judge.
(d)
Pluralism: God as one of many ways to
heaven.
(e)
Neo-paganism: mystical identity between
God and the self.
(f)
Extreme feminism: the creation of new,
female images of God.
(g)
Practical or theoretical deism.
(h)
Process and open theisms.
(4)
From false prophets and religious
figures: Deuteronomy 13, 18; Exodus 22:18.
(5)
From false religious practices:
divination, human sacrifice, petty superstitions: Deuteronomy 18:9-14;
Leviticus 18:21, 19:26, 31, 20:6, 27.
(6)
From those who practice false worship,
Exodus 12:15, 23:25-33; Leviticus 20:1-6; Deuteronomy 21, 13:6ff.; Ezra 4:1-3;
Deuteronomy 7:16-26, 23:3-8, 25:17ff., 27:2-7; cf. Exodus 34, 23:31ff.;
Deuteronomy 7:1-4.
(7)
From uncleanness: Numbers 19; Deuteronomy
23, etc.
(a)
Ceremonial
(b)
Ethical, II Corinthians 7:1; cf.
metaphorical senses of "idolatry," Colossians 3:5; Ephesians 5:5; I John
5:21; Mark 6:24; Luke 6:9ff.
(8)
From any compromise with false religion,
II Kings 5:18; Joshua 23:7; Ezra 4:1-3; Exodus 23:24, 34:13; Numbers
23:52; Deuteronomy 12:1ff., 16:21.
B.
Problem Areas.
1.
The Occult.
a)
The problem.
(1)
Contemporary devotion to the occult goes
back to the pre-Christian period of western history. Shows the incompleteness
of the evangelization of the west.
(2)
Even professing Christians often dabble
in the occult on the side, as a kind of supplement to an inadequate
Christianity, or out of sinful dissatisfaction with the simplicity of the
gospel.
(3)
Petty superstitions: aversion to walking
under ladders, etc.
(4)
Then, there are those who investigate the
occult in a quasi-scientific way—not out of any obvious religious commitment,
but seeking to further their knowledge. E.g.: is there a connection between the
positions of the stars and the events of human history?
b)
Biblical principles.
(1)
Scripture forbids worship of anything
other than the one true God [A., above]. This includes worship both in the
narrowly cultic and in the more broadly ethical senses. False gods are not to
be prayed to, bowed down to, or obeyed as ethical authorities.
(2)
God forbids "turning to" or "hearkening
to" wizards, diviners, Leviticus 19:31, 20:6, 27; Deuteronomy 18:9-14.
(a)
The practices listed in Deuteronomy
18:9ff. are somewhat obscure, but are clearly manifestations of the false
religions.
(b)
The main contrast in Deuteronomy 18 is
between "hearkening" (obedient hearing) to the false religions (verse 14) and
"hearkening" to the words of the true prophet (15, 19).
(c)
Thus, the authentic word of the Lord is
the only, the sufficient ultimate authority for ethics. Cf. earlier discussion
of the sufficiency of Scripture for ethics.
(d)
The passages do not teach that we must ignore
the wizards and diviners; indeed, it was necessary for God's people to know
what these people were saying in order to enact the proper judicial sentence.
(e)
Nor do these passages deny to the wizards
all knowledge of truth. They know the truth in the same (paradoxical!) way that
all unbelievers do (Romans 1), and it is therefore not impossible that we might
occasionally learn from them. But we are not to hearken to them as to
God. They must not be allowed, either in theory or in practice, to become our
ultimate authority or to function as coordinate with or supplementary to
Scripture.
(f)
Petty superstitions: the problem is a
religious fear, with no basis in divine revelation.
(3)
False religions have no power over the
believer but by God's decree.
(a)
Cf. earlier discussion of
I Corinthians 8-10. No idol is anything in this world. We may resist even
the devil himself, and he will flee (James 4:7).
(b)
God may permit Satan to afflict us (Job,
etc.), but will not allow him to take us from the hand of Christ.
(c)
Therefore, we need not fear that we will
be hurt through mere association with the occult—e.g., through talking
to a Satanist, reading a horoscope, studying th history of numerology, etc.
(i)
There is nothing wrong with satisfying
curiosity about such matters. Occult religions are no different, really, from
other false religions, and we generally see no problem in reading the Koran or the Book of Mormon. [Cf. ii.d), above].
(ii)
I am not recommending that anyone
saturate his mind with false religious propaganda. Harm can be done in that
way. In that respect, however, there is no difference between occult literature
and mindless TV show.
(4)
There is no biblical objection against a
Christian scientific study of occult claims, insofar as those claims do not
conflict with Scripture.
(a)
Unbelievers do know truth in a sense and
up to a point [Romans 1; ii.e) above]
(b)
Unbelievers do make discoveries which a
Christian scholar must take account of, though he must reject the religious
presuppositions of the discoverers.
(c)
Sometimes, these discoveries are deeply
embedded in the context of a false religious practice.
(i)
A witch doctor using an herb which turns
out to have real medical value.
(ii)
Acupuncture, techniques for relaxation
and self-defense—often very difficult to separate from Eastern religious
practice, but showing some insight.
(iii)
Ancient Greek beliefs about the spherical
shape of the earth, mainly stemming from mythological and philosophical
speculation about the perfection of the spherical form.
(iv)
Astrology: we must reject astral
determinism and the idea that life is to be governed by the stars. Yet, the
hypothesis, e.g., that personality is influenced by the time of year at which
one is born must not be dismissed simply because it is taught by a false
religion.
(v)
We may appreciate the music and art which
comes out of false religious orientations, even while opposing the content
expressed.
(vi)
Clairvoyance? I have an open mind (as
Geesink, Schilder), but would reject any religious teaching (as Edgar Cayce)
based on that alone.
2.
Religious Pluralism
(Douma)
a)
Are there many ways to heaven? No. The
issue is Christ.
(1)
His unique nature, Matt. 16:13-17, 22:42,
John 1:1, 3, 14, 10:30, Rom. 9:5.
(2)
Unique in making the Father known, John
1:18.
(3)
Unique as the way to the Father, John
14:6, Acts 4:12.
b)
Otherwise, living without God, Acts
14:15-16, 1 Cor. 1:21, 2:10-16, Gal. 4:8, Eph. 2:12, 4:18, 20.
c)
Does not require any aversion or
disrespect to non-Christians. We call them to liberation from the angry
gods of paganism, superstition, etc. The secularization of the world encourages
the development of science and technology. But technology can become an idol
too.
3.
Secret Societies
(Masons, Odd Fellows, Rosicrucians, etc.).
a)
The situation.
(1)
Membership in such societies has been
common among professing Christians, especially in American Presbyterianism. It
is often very difficult to persuade people that there is anything wrong with
them.
(2)
Many reformed bodies, however, have
sharply opposed membership in such organizations: the U.P. Church of North
America; the R.P.N.A., the C.R.C., the O.P.C. The R.C.A. refused to take such a
stand.
(3)
Even those bodies which do oppose such
organizations, however, have not been fully consistent with their positions. In
the OPC, some ruling elders have been Masons in recent years.
b)
The problems.
(1)
The oath of secrecy: does Scripture permit
us (as such organizations sometimes require) to pledge secrecy in advance of
knowing what is to be kept secret?
(2)
The bond of brotherhood: Masons are
expected to help other Masons before anyone else; the brotherhood of Masonry
takes precedence over other relationships. But Scripture calls Christians to
give their most profound loyalty to the body of Christ. Galatians 6:10.
(3)
The religious rites of Masonry: may a
Christian join in prayer, reading of Scripture, religious ceremonies which are
not being carried on in the name of Christ, in which all worshippers are
invited to pray to their own gods?
(4)
The non-Christian character of Masonic
theology.
(a)
Claim to have found the essence of all
religion, of which Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. are only forms.
(b)
God is father to all, apart from Christ.
(c)
Scripture references distorted, taken out
of context. "The stone which the builders rejected" referred to the Masonic
order.
(d)
Salvation available through all
religions.
(e)
Morality based on nature, not Scripture;
Scriptural law not obligatory.
c)
The pro-Masonic response:
(1)
A Christian may use Masonry to further
God's purposes in common grace. It is useful to encourage false religions and
"natural morality" since God uses these to restrain sin in the world.
(2)
Reply: God does use such religions and
moralities; In fact, he uses evil itself to further his purposes. But he does
not, thereby, give his approval to evil or to false worship. Further, Scripture
never calls on believers to give any encouragement to false worship and
doctrine; quite the contrary.
4.
Secular Schools, Labor Unions, etc.
a)
The problem.
(1)
These organizations are not cultic or explicitly
religious in the sense that those discussed earlier are. Yet, we have seen that
the first commandment has a broad as well as a narrow focus.
(2)
Many such organizations set forth
ideologies (Marxism, secular humanism) inconsistent with Christianity, and they
limit the freedom of their members to express and apply their Christian faith.
b)
Response.
(1)
As we noted in earlier discussions, mere
association with false religions is not idolatry; else, we would have to
withdraw from the world. The mere hearing of false doctrine through
involvement with such organizations does not constitute sin. I Corinthians
5:9f.
(2)
Nor does Scripture forbid all support to
such organizations. Jesus advocated paying taxes to Caesar, even though the
Roman government was idolatrous. Paul permitted Christians to purchase food
from idolatrous vendors, even when that food had been offered to idols.
Therefore, it could hardly be wrong to pay union dues to a Marxist union in
return for various services, or to pay tuition at a humanist university.
(3)
It would be sinful for us to adopt
non-Christian ideas or practices as part of our involvement with such
organizations, either as a condition of membership or because we allow
ourselves to be persuaded. That would be "hearkening" unto false teaching.
(4)
There is, of course, always a danger in
exposing ourselves to temptation. Let him who stands take heed lest he fall. It
is always dangerous t expose yourself to false teaching; unless you have a good
reason for doing it, and are well grounded in the faith, don't do it.
(a)
Scripture tells us to focus our
attentions on things that are pure, true, honorable, etc. (Philippians 4:8).
This does not mean that we are to be ignorant of evil; Paul was not. But it
does mean that we ought not to saturate our minds with spiritual poison.
(b)
This consideration is a serious one when
we consider the possibility of sending young children to public schools.
(i)
In general, I recommend the use of
Christian schools or home schools, especially for the youngest children.
(ii)
However, there are places where Christian
schools are either non-existent or inadequate educationally or foster seriously
false notions of Christianity (such as the notion that Christians never
associate with non-Christians). Here, then, there are problems on both sides,
and the alternatives must be weighed carefully in each particular case. The
parents will be responsible for the outcome. Ultimately, they are the educators
of their children.
(iii)
And it is important to prepare children
to live in the real world, not in a Christian ghetto. For most of us that will
mean at some time receiving education from unbelievers. That may occur in high
school, college, grad school, vocational training, etc. Christian parents need
to decide responsibly at what point and to what degree their children should be
exposed to such education.
5.
Apostate Churches.
a)
Scripture does not directly address the
question of the apostate church.
(1)
It might be argued that Old Covenant
Israel had become apostate by rejecting Christ. Still, Scripture does not
assume that one could simply leave Israel at his own discretion. The Jews were
bound to Israel by birth, circumcision, priesthood, temple; there was no alternative.
Only the making of a New Covenant by divine initiative could warrant a
separation of the Christian church from the Old Covenant people of God. No such
divine provision exists to free us from contemporary church organizations.
(2)
In the New Testament, the possibility of
an apostate church is not considered. It is assumed, in fact, that apostates
will demonstrate their apostasy by leaving the church, I John 2:19, or
else will be disciplined by the church (I Corinthians 5:9-13).
b)
However, Scripture does not guarantee
that any particular church organization will remain faithful until the return
of Christ, anymore than it guaranteed the perpetual faithfulness of Old
Testament Israel.
c)
It cannot be argued that Christians are
bound to visible church organizations in the same way that Israel was bound to
the temple and the Aaronic priesthood. Christ is our temple, our one mediator.
d)
Further, it is doubtful that any modern
denomination can even claim the title "church" on a New Testament basis. In the
New Testament, "church" is applied to local assemblies, to city churches, to
the church universal, but not to anything like a modern denomination. The
"denomination" is an anomaly; we must treat it as a church for practical
purposes, since it is the only recognized visible form of the church beyond the
local unit; however, in a deeper sense, it is only a temporary makeshift, a
tent in which we live while awaiting and working toward the completion of our
house—the restoration of all Christians to one visible church. Thus, to leave
one denomination and enter another is not the same thing as schism from the New
Testament church.
e)
Still, division among brethren is not to
be taken lightly, for division tends to produce hurt, lessening of fellowship,
weakening of the whole body of Christ.
f)
Separation is warranted:
(1)
When a particular organization loses any
of the defining marks of the church (classically formulated as the preaching of
the word, the right administration of the sacraments, discipline).
(2)
When membership in such an organization
requires commission of sin: in 1936, many left the Presbyterian Church USA on
the ground that they were being required to support false teaching as a
condition of membership.
g)
While separation is required only
on the above grounds, we cannot argue that it is forbidden in every other
instance. One might leave a church or denomination to join another for many
reasons—e.g., to find greater opportunity for developing and using one's gifts.
It is important, however, that wherever enmity or strife play a role in such a
division, that the division not be allowed to prevent reconciliation.
h)
Be careful of oversimplifying the
questions involved here. There are many complications in particular cases. For
instance, one might argue that it is sinful for a particular evangelical
congregation to belong to a liberal denomination, but not for an individual
evangelical to belong to that congregation. Apostasy of a denomination does not
necessarily imply the apostasy of every congregation therein, even though it
might imply some lesser sins in those congregations.
II.
The Second Commandment:
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing
that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the
water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them:
for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers
upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my
commandments.
WLC,
108: What are the duties required in the second
commandment?
The
duties required in the second commandment are, the receiving, observing, and
keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God hath
instituted in his word; particularly prayer and thanksgiving in the name of
Christ; the reading, preaching, and hearing of the word; the administration and
receiving of the sacraments; church government and discipline; the ministry and
maintenance thereof; religious fasting; swearing by the name of God, and vowing
unto him; as also the disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship;
and, according to each one's place and calling, removing it, and all monuments
of idolatry.
109: What are the sins forbidden in the
second commandment?
The
sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counselling,
commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted
by God himself; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the
three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image
or likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshipping of it, or God in it or
by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of
them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the
worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up
of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of
antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever;
simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship
and ordinances which God has appointed.
A.
Main Thrust
(narrow focus):
Forbids making images for the purpose of bowing
to them—i.e., doing homage to them as representations of deity, and / or as
media through which God draws near.
1.
Context of worship.
a)
The formulations in Exodus and
Deuteronomy seem at first reading to forbid all image-making, i.e., all art.
b)
Other considerations, however, counteract
this first impression:
(1)
Scripture never suggests that there is
anything wrong with art in itself, except possibly in these passages.
(2)
Scripture not only permits, but warrants
the use of ornamentation and in particular the making of pictures—of cherubim,
bells, pomegranates, Exodus 25-28; note especially 25:18ff., 28:33ff., chapters
35-39; cf. I Kings 6:14-36, 10:19ff. Cf. also Numbers 21:8, Ezekiel
41:17-20.
(3)
The brass serpent was ordained by God to
heal the people as they looked toward it (Num. 21:6-9), This was not idolatry.
But the people later made idolatrous use
of it (2 Kings 18:4), and God was then pleased with its destruction.
(4)
Use of the Hebrew terms allows for both
idolatrous and non-idolatrous use of the same item matz-tze-bah, pillar, designates
idols in some contexts (Exodus 23:24, 34:13; Leviticus 26:1; Deuteronomy 7:5,
etc.) but is elsewhere used in a good sense (Genesis 28:18, 22, 31:13, 45ff.,
35:14, 20). The resultant meaning is that a pillar can have either an
idolatrous or non-idolatrous function—that the erection of the pillar is
neither right nor wrong in itself. It is the use, not the object itself,
with which the commandment is concerned.
(5)
Pesel,
graven image, is always used in a bad sense, as an object used for idolatrous
purposes. As I see it, it denotes objects used in idolatry, not art objects as
such.
(6)
Temunah,
likeness, is always used in a bad sense when referring to likenesses of created
things, thus similar to pesel.
Interestingly, however, it can also be used to refer to a likeness of God,
Numbers 12:8, Psalm 17:15, not al all unfavorably.
c)
Positively, the context is one of
religious worship (not only public, but private, Deuteronomy 27:15).
2.
Representations of deity.
a)
The commandment does not forbid all
religious use of images, for such images were used in the tabernacle and temple
worship. [Cf. passages under 1.b.ii., above].
b)
Specifically, it forbids the use of
images as representations of deity.
(1)
It forbids "molten gods," Exodus 20:22f.,
24:17; Leviticus 19:4.
(2)
It forbids erecting images, pillars,
etc., for the purpose of bowing down to them, Leviticus 26:1. In effect,
the second sentence of the commandment in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 gives the
purpose for which the making of images is forbidden.
3.
Representations of the true God.
a)
Obviously, the second commandment forbids
making images of false gods. In that respect, however, it is redundant, since
all worship of false gods is condemned already in the first commandment.
b)
At crucial points, the language of the
commandment is invoked specifically against the worship of Jehovah by images.
(1)
Deuteronomy 4:15ff.: The commandment is
warranted by the fact that Israel saw no form at Sinai, where the true God was
manifested.
(2)
Exodus 32:1-6: The golden calf was
intended to be an image of Jehovah.
(a)
Verse 4: "These are thy gods (elohim)," with plural pronoun and verb.
But there is one calf. The verse as a whole is a paraphrase of Exodus 20:2.
(b)
Verse 5: Following the making of the calf
and the altar, Aaron announces a feast of Jehovah, which would make no sense if
he and Israel had determined to worship other gods.
(c)
Verse 6: The next day they offered
burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, best understood as those required by the
true God.
(3)
I Kings 12:28ff.: The calves made by
Jeroboam were intended to represent Jehovah.
(a)
Note verse 28, like Exodus 32:4, a
reference to Exodus 20:2.
(b)
The people are condemned initially, not
for worshipping a false god, but for worshipping in a way not ordained by God.
But in 1 Kings 14:9, Jeroboam's calves are called "other gods," indicating the
unity between the second commandment and the first. To worship Yahweh by an
image is to worship another god.
(c)
Ahab (1 Kings 16:31) went from violating
the second commandment to violating the first, worshipping Baal.
(4) Compare Micah,
Judg. 17:2, 18:30, who also worshipped Yahweh by an image.
4.
Pagan Sacramentalism.
a)
"Bowing down to wood and stone" does not
necessarily mean that the wood and stone are considered divine. Image-worship,
even within paganism, is generally more sophisticated than that. The wood and
stone may receive homage, not because they are themselves divine, but because
they are media through which the god draws near to the people and the people to
him.
b)
Especially, the image represents a
conduit of power from the god to the
worshipper (victory, fertility, etc.).
c)
Thus, the commandment proscribes, not
only the crude belief in the deity of material objects, but also the more
refined sacramentalism described above.
B.
Relationship to the First Commandment.
1.
In general, it can be said that the first
commandment deals with the object of worship, while the second deals
with the way in which worship is to be carried on. Cf. the two meanings
of "idolatry"—either worshipping a false god or worshipping by means of an
image. Cf. Deut. 12:4-5, 31.
2.
The first commandment focuses on the
heart-attitude, therefore, and the second focuses on the external fruit of that
attitude. Cf. the general biblical relation between faith and works or between
love and obedience, both of course, products of redemption.
3.
The two involve one another. To worship
God contrary to his will is in effect to worship a false god—our own
imagination. And to worship a false god is to respond disobediently to the
revelation of the true God. 1 Kings 14:9.
4.
The first commandment, objectively,
focuses on the uniqueness of the true God; the second focuses on the Son of
God, as the exclusive revelation of the Father—[see C.3.c., below].
5.
The curse and blessing pertains to both
the first two commandments, [cf. C.4.a., below]
6.
The number-problem.
a)
Augustine regarded our first two
commandments as one commandment and divided our tenth commandment into two. In
this, he is followed by the Roman Catholic and Lutheran traditions.
(1)
Division of the tenth into two
commandments is implausible.
(2)
Union of the first two commandments makes
some sense: both commandments dealing with worship, and the second concludes
with a reference to God's jealousy and a curse-blessing formula which on any
numbering system may be seen as sanctioning both of our first two commandments.
Other evidence, however, points in the other direction. Historically, the
uniting of these commandments has been linked with a lax attitude toward the
use of images, the prohibition of images being in effect "buried" in the middle
of one commandment. That is a danger, though the problem is more basically one
of human sin than of the proper numbering system.
b)
The Jews from an early period regarded
the historical prologue (Exodus 20:2) as the first commandment, and then united
our first two commandments as the second. The prologue, however, cannot be
plausibly regarded as a commandment, especially in the light of our current
knowledge of the covenant structure. One could argue that the prologue could be
seen as dabar, word. (The ten are grouped
together as debarim in Ex. 34:28 and
elsewhere.) But in such contexts, dabar
seems virtually equivalent to mitzvah—cf.
especially the references in Esther.
C.
Grounds for the Commandment.
1.
God's sovereign invisibility, Deuteronomy
4:12, 15ff.
a)
The invisibility of God is a somewhat
paradoxical doctrine in Scripture.
(1)
On the one hand, it is stated plainly and
often, Ex. 33:20, 23, Romans 1:20; John 1:18; Colossians 1:15; I Timothy
1:17, 6:16.
(2)
On the other hand, God does make himself seen.
Theophany plays an important role in the history of redemption. Cf. Genesis
32:24ff.; Exodus 33:18-23; Numbers 12:8 (temunah,
used in second commandment); Isaiah 6. Cf. man and Christ as "image" [below,
2.], Kline on the "glory cloud".
(3)
We should distinguish between
(a)
God's essential
invisibility, John 1:18, Rom. 1:20, Col. 1:15, 1 Tim. 1:17, 6:16.
(b)
God hiding himself because of man's sin,
lest divine judgment break out against man, Ex. 19:24, 33:20, 23. In these
passages God can be seen, by
theophany. But God restricts man's access to the theophany. This is what I call
below God's "redemptive-historical invisibility."
(4)
Note paradoxical formulations,
II Corinthians 4:18; Hebrews 11:27; John 14:7ff.
(5)
Much of the difficulty in applying the
second commandment arises because of this paradox: how do we do justice to
God's invisibility without compromising what Scripture teaches about his visibility?
b)
Coordination of the biblical teaching,
especially as applied to the second commandment:
(1)
Theophanies typically increase our
awareness of God's incomprehensibility and transcendence.
(a)
Isaiah, who saw the Lord, presents some
of the strongest teaching against idolatry. He saw the Lord "high and lifted
up" (6:1), from whom even the seraphim covered their faces (6:2). Through him,
God says, "to whom will you liken me?", 40:25.
(b)
Ezekiel (1:28) and John (Revelation 1:17)
fell on their faces in response to the visions. Isaiah was overcome by his sin
(6:5).
(c)
The mentality of idolatry is quite
opposite to this. The idolater produces an image to reduce the distinction
between creator and creature, between Lord and sinner. He wants to have a more
direct link to God on his own terms, more immediate access to use God's power.
(2)
Theophanies are given by God—the
result of God's sovereign initiative.The "essential invisibility" of God means
that God is not limited to any visible form or to any particular visible
form. God himself decides whether and when and how he will manifest himself
visibly. Invisibility is a function of sovereignty.
(3)
Deuteronomy 4 is not, however, primarily
concerned with God's "essential" invisibility, but with his
"redemptive-historical" invisibility.
(a)
Idols are prohibited, not because God is
invisible in a general sense, but because there was no temunah (form) seen at Mount Sinai at the giving of the law (f:12,
15).
(b)
God's temunah
is seen on other occasions—Numbers 12:8; Psalm 17:15; however at this
particular point in redemptive history, it was concealed from the nation as a
whole.
(c)
Thus, the point is not only that God is
sovereign over his visible manifestations [above, ii.], but also that, in fact,
God sovereignly determined not to make himself visible in the Sinai revelation.
(d)
The significance of this can be seen from
a broader redemptive-historical perspective. The "seeing" of God is primarily
an eschatological concept in Scripture. It is at the last day that "every eye
shall see him" and that, in a particular way, the "pure in heart" will "see
God" (Matthew 5:8). The eschaton, however, has its anticipations in history: in
theophany, in Christ. The present kingdom of Christ is
"semi-eschatological"—the kingdom already and not-yet.
(i)
The Old Covenant was primarily a time,
therefore, of divine invisibility. God willed to be invisible in a special way
to indicate the futurity of the kingdom in unequivocal terms. The
theophanies underscored this emphasis by presenting the people with a contrast
between their present kingdom and the kingdom to come.
(ii)
The New Covenant is a time of paradox.
The Father has been seen in the Son—touched, handled, etc. Yet, now, Christ has
ascended. Though fully visible, he is not on earth as he was and as he will be.
Thus, the more paradoxical assertions (found even in the Old Testament) are
stressed especially in the New Testament—II Corinthians 4:18; Hebrews
11:27. Until the parousia, we walk by faith, not by sight: Hebrews 11:1, 13,
II Corinthians 5:7; Romans 8:24. But the fact that Jesus has been
seen makes all the difference. That "has been" can even be put in the present
tense, Hebrews 2:9.
(4)
During this redemptive-historical period,
revelation is normally by word rather than by vision, theophany, image.
(a)
In Exodus 20:22-23, the prohibition of
images is connected with the fact that God spoke with Israel from
heaven. (Interestingly, ra`ah is used: Israel saw that God
spoke from heaven.) The point seems to be that use of images would hinder
Israel's memory of and / or obedience to the divine voice which defined the
covenant terms.
(b)
In Deuteronomy 4:12, "form" is repeatedly
and emphatically contrasted with "voice". At Sinai, Israel saw no form, but did
hear the voice—the statutes and ordinances.
(c)
In general, theophanies are given for the
sake of hearing rather than contemplation. The focus is on the words spoken,
rather than on the shapes perceived. The latter only reinforce the former. The
prophet, typically, does not describe the vision in great detail, but records
the words given him to speak. Even in Ezekiel, where visions are described in
greater detail than usual, note the emphatic transition from vision to word in
1:28-2:1f. The prophet does not gaze contemplatively at the vision; rather he
falls down as though dead. Then, he hears the voice. Cf. Revelation 1:17-2:1.
(d)
When Philip asks to see God, Jesus points
to himself (John 14:9), specifically, his words (10). (His works are introduced
also; I take it, however, that, in this context, they are introduced primarily
as attestations to Jesus' words.)
(e)
The image of the cherubim in the temple
is clearly subordinate to the presence of the law in the ark.
(f)
This principle, of course, is not absolute.
As we have seen, there are theophanies, and there are images (Christ and man)
during the time before the parousia.
There is also the visible revelation of God in the creation. However,
the following points are beyond question:
(i)
Between the fall and the parousia, visions and theophanies are
given to few; but the word of God is available to all. Even the Gentiles have
the work of the law written on their heart.
(ii)
God calls us to obey his word, not to
expect theophany. Scripture is sufficient, as we argued in Part II.
(iii)
Our time is predominantly a time of
walking by faith rather than by sight, II Corinthians 5:7; Romans
8:24; Hebrews 11:1, 13.
(5)
In expositions of the second commandment,
it is sometimes said that since God is infinite, invisible, and immaterial, he
cannot be pictured, and, thus, that any image is in effect a lie. This point
contains some truth, but requires modification.
(a)
Although the Scriptures do refer to God's
invisibility in this connection, they also do justice to the ways in which God
makes himself visible, and the sense in which his current invisibility is
redemptively-historically conditioned [above].
(b)
Even if God never took on visible
form, even if he chose always to remain invisible, it could not be said, for
that reason, that God cannot be pictured.
(i)
Christ and man are God's "images,"
pictures of God, even in their physical characteristics. (Cf. Course in
Doctrine of Man, Kline's articles.)
(ii)
A picture is never identical with the
thing pictured; nor does it claim to reproduce exhaustively the characteristics
of the thing pictured (which would be the same). Your daughter does not feel
like Kodak paper! "Picturing" is possible even when there are great differences
between the picture and the thing pictured.
(iii)
It is possible to "picture" something invisible—by
producing something visible which corresponds to it and reminds us of it:
pictures of atoms, man's arm as picture of God's strength, etc.
(iv)
In one sense, anything can be a picture
of anything if we are trained to interpret the picture in a way which leads us
to the thing pictured. "Picturing" is based not only in the characteristics of
the picture and the thing pictured, but also in the social conventions which
set the rules for "representing" and the abilities of individuals to see the
applications of those rules. Cf. discussion of "seeing as" in Part Two.
(c)
But isn't God incomprehensible and
therefore, incomparable (Isaiah 40:18-26, 46:5)? And doesn't
incomparability preclude picturing?
(i)
Incomparability is a paradoxical notion,
like invisibility. God is incomparable, but Scripture is constantly comparing
him with creation—negatively, of course (God is not like
. . . .) but also positively (God is a rock, a lion, a king,
etc.). In one sense, everything Scripture (and we) say about God is based on
comparison.
(ii)
The point in Isaiah 40, etc., is that
alongside all the comparabilities between God and creation, there is a
fundamental incomparability, namely, the creator / creature distinction itself.
It is as important to note how God is unlike the world as to note how he
is like it (even if, paradoxically, even our language of unlikeness presupposes
likeness). Isaiah teaches that idolatry obscures the creator / creature
distinction. The idolater ignores the obvious (and comical!) differences
between his weak, beggarly idols and the eternal God.
(iii)
Bowing down
before an idol necessarily involves such confusion. One bows before an idol
because he thinks the idol, as opposed to the ordinary creation, represents the
distinctive character of God. To him, it represents, not so much the likeness
between creator and creature, as the distinction between creator and
creature. But, of course, he is deluded. The idol is wholly inadequate to
represent that distinction.
(d)
Conclusion:
God can be pictured, though of course not exhaustively. However, idols
are never adequate pictures of God, since their makers seek to minimize the
creator / creature distinction. They are lies. The deception, however,
has little to do with God's invisibility as such. There is no deception in
representing the invisible by the visible, as long as necessary distinctions
are made. The deceptiveness of idolatry, then, is better considered under the
following heading:
2.
God as the living God.
a)
Idols cannot see, hear, smell, or
[especially in the light of 1.b.iv. above] speak: Deuteronomy 4:28; Psalm
115:5-8; 135:15-18; Habakkuk 2:18f.; Isaiah 46:7; Jeremiah 10:5;
I Corinthians 12:2; Isaiah 40-48.
b)
Idols are made of wood, stone, gold,
silver: Deuteronomy 4:28, 28:36, 64, 29:17, Exodus 20:23; Isaiah 40:18ff., etc.
c)
Idols, therefore, mislead us about the
most distinctive characteristics of God, as opposed to those of the false
gods—his absoluteness [cf. 1. above] and his personality. It is not that a
person cannot be pictured by an inanimate medium; rather, the point is that the
use of idols distracts us from those characteristics of God which we should
especially be concentrating on. Worse, people make idols to avoid being
confronted with the absolute personality of the true and living God.
3.
Respect for the structure of creation.
a)
Note in Exodus 20 that all of creation is
described: images are prohibited of anything in heaven, earth, or sea. This
three-layer description is a common Scriptural way of describing the whole
creation, hearkening back to Genesis 1:26. The point, therefore, is that
worship is to be focused on the creator, as opposed to anything in
creation.
(1)
Recall the statement of Romans 1:25 that
idolatry involves "worshipping and serving the creature rather than the
creator."
(2)
Recall 2.b. above, which reproaches idols
for the base materials of which they are made.
b)
The dignity of man himself is at stake,
also.
(1)
In Genesis 1:26f., to which allusion is
made in the second commandment, man himself is the image of God. For man to bow
down to an idol is not only to dishonor God, but also to dishonor his image in
us. How can God's image bow before something less than himself, something over
which he has dominion? Even angels refuse human worship.
(2)
Idols, far from conveying divine power,
are far weaker even than men. Note the satire on idolatry in Isaiah 40-48
focusing on the weakness of the idols. Cf. Galatians 4:9.
(3)
Over and over again, idols are described
as human creations, the work of men's hands, Exodus 20:4; Deuteronomy 4:28;
Acts 7:41. Note emphasis on the ingenuity of the human idol-maker, finding ways
to keep his god from falling over, etc.: Isaiah 40:18ff., 44:12ff. Idols are
not only subject to us in the creation order [i., ii.], they are our products.
Our very creativity, reflecting God's ultimate creativity, is being
prostituted.
(4)
Those who make idols destroy themselves.
The makers of idols shall be "like unto them" (Psalm 115:7, 135:18), i.e.,
dead.
(5)
In redemption, we are renewed in the
image of Christ. If it is blasphemy for God's image to bow before an idol, it is
surely blasphemous for one renewed in the image of Christ to do it.
c)
Christ himself is the image of God in a
distinctive sense. In redemption, he is the image through whom our relation to
God is mediated. But the idolater claims precisely that his creation performs
the function of mediation. Thus, he denies the exclusiveness of Christ's
redemptive work. It may be said that the second commandment refers to
Christ—that it summons us to worship exclusively in his name. [Note 1.b.iv.
above on the redemptive-historical thrust of this commandment.]
4.
God's covenant jealousy, Exodus 20:5ff.,
Deuteronomy 4:24, 5:9f. Cf. Hebrews 12:29 which invokes the language of
Deuteronomy 4:24 in the context of New Covenant worship.
a)
The reference to jealousy and covenant
sanctions probably refers to both of the first two commandments, rather than
just the second. Jealousy is frequently invoked as a basis for the prohibition
of the first commandment: Exodus 34:14; Deuteronomy 6:13-15.
b)
Jealousy is a covenantal concept: God
will not tolerate any deviation from the exclusiveness of our covenant
loyalty to him. Deuteronomy 4:23f.
(1)
God's name is jealous, Exodus
34:14. His covenant name binds him to his people and thus the people to him.
(2)
In our discussion of the seventh
commandment, we shall note the frequent parallels drawn between idolatry and
adultery. Idolatry is essentially violation of our marriage vow, our covenant
with God. God's jealousy is the jealousy of a husband toward an unfaithful
wife. The divine jealousy, therefore, begins with his covenant love. His anger
burns against those who have offended that love.
(3)
In Exodus 34:14, God's jealousy forbids
the making of covenants with the inhabitants of the land.
(4)
Note the covenantal language of
II Kings 21:7f.; Ezekiel 8 describing idolatry in the place where God
chose to set his name. Ezekiel 8:3 describes "the image" "which provokes to
jealousy," i.e., the image in the temple itself.
c)
The covenant jealousy is symbolized by
"consuming fire."
(1)
Though Israel did not see the "form" of
God at Mount Sinai, they did see a remarkable visual display: lightnings, a
thick cloud, smoke. The picture is one of a great fire.
(2)
The fire is threatening. The people may
not go up the mountain (Exodus 19:22) "lest Jehovah break forth upon them." The
wrath of God is like a flame which reaches out to consume.
(3)
Significantly, both man and beast
are kept from the mountain, 19:13; Hebrews 12:20. Violators will be stoned. The
distinction between creator and fallen creation is strictly maintained. [Cf.
above, 3.]
(4)
Scripture reminds us of the fire when we
are tempted to covenant unfaithfulness, Deuteronomy 4:24; Hebrews 12:29.
d)
Relations among the various grounds:
God's jealousy guards the structure of creation—his own sovereign authority and
distinctive nature as well as that of Christ and man, his created image. Since
creation itself is structured covenantally, this is to be expected. His
jealousy maintains that structure against all apparent threats. Hence:
D.
Sanctions.
1.
The curse: "visiting the iniquities of
the fathers upon the children and upon the third and fourth generation of them
that hate me."
a)
Does this mean that children are punished
for their fathers' sins, contrary to Ezekiel 18:14-17?
(1)
The passage presupposes that the children
are as guilty as the fathers. Leson'ay
= in relation to those who hate me. By its position, the word refers both to
the fathers and to the children.
(2)
The children do, therefore, suffer for
their own sins. In a sense, however, they also suffer for their fathers'
sins. Not that they bear the penalty deserved by their fathers; certainly not
that the fathers go free. But the iniquity of the fathers begins a process
whereby the wrath of God is stored up, to be released perhaps generations later
in terrible fury. Cf. Leviticus 26:39; 2 Kings 17:7-23, Isaiah 65:7; Amos 7:17;
Jeremiah 16:11ff.; Daniel 9:16; Romans 1:24ff. (on the increase of sin
from one generation to the next). In this sense, the punishment of the children
for the fathers' sins is not denied by Ezekiel 18:14-17. Cf. also Matthew
23:29-33. The sins of the fathers corrupt the environment, the family and
social life of the people, setting the scene for judgment.
(3)
Scripture teaches that there is a remnant
that escapes the judgment upon the wicked generation. Therefore, there is
nothing fatalistic here. The converts at Pentecost heeded the apostolic
injunction to "save yourselves from this crooked generation" (Acts 2:40), and
they were saved. By God's grace, we can, amazingly enough, leave one generation
and join another, the family of God! It is possible, however, even for members
of the elect remnant to lose their earthly lives in God's historical judgments.
(4)
Our solidarity with Adam is a special
case. As he is our representative, we are directly guilty of his sin (Romans 5,
cf. course in Doctrine of Man) in a
way in which we are not responsible for the sins of our more recent ancestors.
b)
Civil sanctions.
(1)
The practice of idolatry (public
enough to be witnessed) is a capital crime, Deuteronomy 17:2-7.
(2)
The idols of Canaan are to be utterly
destroyed; not even the silver and gold in them may be kept, Deuteronomy
7:25f., 12:3.
c)
Note the emphasis upon God's justice, and
upon the seriousness of sin, particularly idolatry. The idolater hates
God, treasures up wrath for himself, and brings enormous spiritual damage on
later generations. Recall the effects of secular humanism upon education, the
media, etc., in our own time.
2.
The blessing: "and showing lovingkindness
unto a thousand generations of them that love me and keep my commandments."
a)
Mercy is greater than wrath. Cf. Romans
5, "much more."
(1)
Dor,
generation, is not found in the Hebrew text of Exodus 20:5f. or Deuteronomy
5:9f. It is understood as that to which "third" and "fourth" apply, and, thus,
should also be understood as following "thousand."
(2)
‘alafim,
thousands, is, to be sure, a cardinal number, but there is no special ordinal
form of elef.
(3)
Cf. Deuteronomy 7:9, where dor is used, and God's hesed is extended to a thousand
generations.
b)
Note the implicit connection between
covenant jealousy and mercy. Jealousy is not only negative; it guards
the blessings of the faithful.
c)
Note the promise also of material
prosperity, Leviticus 26:1-13. The connection is not mechanical (Job, etc.),
but God promises blessing to the whole person.
d)
Ultimately, the promise is fulfilled in
Christ, the one righteous man from the wicked generations of Adam. His
generations are the ones who love God and keep his commandments. He refused
idolatry (Matthew 4:8-10) even to gain all the kingdoms of the world. Now all
the kingdoms are his, and ours in him—blessings unmeasured.
e)
The lack of symmetry between judgment and
mercy testifies to the greatness of the grace of God. The wicked get what they
deserve; the righteous partake of utterly inexhaustible goodness in Christ. The
blessing does come to those who obey; but it is out of all proportion to
anything deserved by the obedient.
E.
Broader Implications: The Positive
Biblical Doctrine of Worship [Cf. I.A.1.b.]
1.
Distinctively monotheistic:
the strong prohibitions against worshipping other gods are positively
reinforced by the central altar, Deuteronomy 12:1-4. One God, one altar, one
law, one nation, one way of salvation. Ultimately, the cross is the one altar.
2.
Redemptive:
Biblical worship is focused on sin, forgiveness and rejoicing in redemption.
There is nothing in it of magic or manipulation, our trying to gain God's favor
or even to control God. Rather, we confess our sins and plead God's mercy on
the basis of his sacrifice.
3.
Imitative of God:
Cf. Kline in WTJ, Spring and Fall,
‘77, Spring, ‘78. He argues that the tabernacle, the temple, the priests'
garments and the human worshippers themselves are presented in Scripture as
images of the "glory cloud" of God's presence. [Cf. C.1., above: images are not
forbidden because images are impossible. Rather, images are forbidden because
of the very richness of imagery supplied by God himself at his covenantal
initiative.
4.
By Divine Command:
the "regulative principle."
a)
Formulation:
"But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself,
and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped
according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan,
under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy
Scripture." (Westminster Confession of
Faith XXI:i).
(1)
Cf. XX:ii: "God alone is Lord of the
conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men
which are in anything contrary to his word; or beside it, in matters of faith
or worship." Note position of the semicolon, distinguishing faith and worship
from other matters.
(2)
Note also two important qualifications in
I:vi:
(a)
"The whole counsel of God, concerning all
things necessary for his won glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either
expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be
deduced from Scripture . . . ." Worship is not limited to
"express" teachings of Scripture, but is based also on legitimate inferences
from Scripture. That is, applications. The Confession makes no sharp
distinction between the meaning of Scripture and its application, and no
distinction at all between these as to their authority.
(b)
". . . and that there are some
circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church,
common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of
nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word,
which are always to be observed." Whenever a question arises as to whether or
not a practice is justified by the regulative principle, we must ask whether
that practice is an "element" of worship or a mere "circumstance". Such
questions are often difficult to answer. Yet, the Confession sees rightly that
to apply Scripture to a situation always involves some Christian prudence,
some knowledge of the situation, some extra-Scriptural premises. That cannot be
avoided in worship or in life in general.
(3)
Summary.
(a)
What we do in worship must be prescribed
by Scripture. "Whatever is not commanded is forbidden." In Lutheranism, a different
principle prevails—"Whatsoever is not forbidden is permitted." Roman
Catholicism is even further from the Reformed principle, claiming the right to
command what Scripture neither commands nor forbids. Modernism is even worse,
permitting and, at times, commanding what Scripture forbids.
(b)
The regulative principle does not require
that everything we do in worship be the response to a specific divine command.
Acts performed as response to inferences from Scripture, approved examples
in Scripture, or as circumstances of worship are permitted.
b)
Scriptural Basis.
(1)
Recall earlier discussions of the
sufficiency of Scripture for ethics—for human life in general.
(2)
Scripture is particularly jealous to
guard this principle in the area of worship. [Cf. Exodus 25:40; Hebrews 8:5;
Numbers 16:1-40, 20:10-13; I Samuel 13:8-14; I Chronicles 13, 15:1-15
(especially 15:13).] These passages set forth the principle that the commands
of God concerning worship are not to be violated.
(3)
Beyond this, there are also passages
condemning idolatry on the ground that an idol is a product of human
initiative, a human creation. [Cf. C.3.b.iii., above.] Not only are we not to
violate God's commands, but, more specifically, we are not to devise means of
worship beyond what God has commanded. Cf. also C.1. on God's sovereignty in
revelation.
(4)
Scripture teaches explicitly that God is
not to be worshipped according to human devices.
(a)
God condemns certain forms of worship
simply on the ground that they were not commanded, Leviticus 10:1f., Jeremiah 8:31.
(b)
Colossians 2:22f. condemns
"will-worship"—worship arising from human initiative.
(5)
In the New Covenant, the principle is
fulfilled and confirmed in the finished sacrifice of Christ, to which no one
may add. Ultimately, Christ is our priest, and we come before God in his name
alone. (Hebrews 8-10).
(a)
Even in the Old Covenant, there were
"ordinances" (Hebrews 9:1). Christ performed the antitypical ordinances
(9:11-28). The whole pattern of worship, then, is subject to God's
ordination—the regulative principle.
(b)
Our regular worship is part of the
pattern. We also enter the holy place (10:19), imitating the prior entering of
Christ. This language pertains not only to salvation in general, but also to
the worshipping assembly (verses 24-25). Cf. Shepherd's argument, Biblical Doctrine of Worship, 52-55.
(6)
As a matter of fact, when we assemble for
worship, we are assembled to obey certain divine commands. Anything else we do
while assembled cannot fairly be called "worship".
c)
Life and Worship:
The point about the semicolon [a.i., above] raises the question of the relation
between acts of worship and other kinds of acts. Cf. the treatment of this
question from another angle in I.A.1.b.
(1)
In creation in general, all things happen
by God's command. There is no permission without command.
(2)
Human life in general is subject to God's
law alone as the ultimate standard: Deuteronomy 4:1f., 12:32, Proverbs 30:6,
Acts 5:29.
(a)
In a sense, all that we do is response to
divine command. Some divine commands are so broad as to cover all of life, so
that everything we do either obeys or disobeys them: Genesis 1:28;
I Corinthians 10:31; Romans 14:23, etc. Cf. previous discussions of sola scriptura.
(b)
Thus, there is no gray area of things
which God neither approves nor disapproves. Everything we do ought to be
approved by God. Cf. discussion of adiaphora.
(c)
At the same time, there are many ways of
fulfilling God's commands, many ways of applying them to life situations. These
applications require, as we have said, human prudence working within the general
teaching of Scripture. And often, there is more than one way of obediently
fulfilling a particular command—e.g., buying apples or oranges to feed your
family.
(d)
The pattern, then, is that all that we do
should be the fulfillment of God's commands, but that the application of
these commands to situations involves godly human wisdom. So far, there is no
clear difference between this general "regulative principle" and the
more specific principle which is applied to worship.
(e)
In our non-cultic life, there are
subordinate authorities of various sorts—parents, rulers, teachers, landlords,
etc., to whom we owe obedience, except when their word conflicts with God's
(cf. discussion of the Fifth Commandment). Is this different in principle from
the cultic situation? Read on.
d)
Elements and Circumstances
(1)
I can accept the Confession's distinction
in a general sense. The basic things we do in worship ("elements") must be
commanded in Scripture; but in applying those commands, we may need to
incorporate some things not mentioned in Scripture ("circumstances"). This is
true of any divine command. God commands us to honor our parents, but to carry
out that command, we must do some things that Scripture does not mention
explicitly.
(2)
However, in the extra-confessional
writings of the Puritan and old Scots divines, they tried to define the
elements/circumstances distinction with greater precision. I am not convinced
that those precise definitions are scriptural.
(a)
Elements
(i)
the "essential" or "substantial" parts of
worship.
(ii)
Everything that has "religious
significance."
(iii)
Specific to a particular kind of worship
(tabernacle, temple, synagogue, NT church).
(iv)
Each element has an independent
Scriptural warrant. The warrant for prayer cannot be stretched to include song,
even though many biblical songs are prayers.
(b)
Circumstances: The "accidents," as
opposed to the "substance" of worship. These are of three kinds:
(i)
Events "common to human actions and
societies" (WCF 1.6). Like the time and place of worship.
(ii)
Specific ways of carrying out elements
(words of prayers, etc.), sometimes called "forms" or "expressions." With
spiritual meaning.
(iii)
Actions that "have no connection at all
with worship per se" (Bushell). As
the color of clothing worshippers wear. Unlike (i), these are "separable" from
worship.
(c)
Objections
(i)
None of these distinctions is warranted
by Scripture: a great irony, in a system that is supposed to make worship more
Scriptural.
(ii)
Distinction between substance and
accident is Aristotelian, not biblical.
(iii)
"Independence" of elements is atomistic.
Elements of worship in Scripture are not separate in this way. In song we pray
and receive instruction. We receive the preached Word with praise and awe.
(iv)
Distinction between "religious" and
"non-religious" actions questionable.
(A) Time
of worship, clothing of worshipers can affect the religious aspects of the
service.
(B)
All of life is religious in some senses
(Kuyper).
(v)
God has not provided a complete and
specific list of elements for every form of worship.
(A) Even
the temple worship lacks a precise liturgy,
though much is said about the details of making sacrifice.
(B)
Nothing on the synagogue, except that a
"sacred assembly" is appropriate (Lev. 23:3).
(C)
Nothing on baptism as an element of NT
worship services.
(D) Nothing
on a sermon as an element of NT worship.
(E)
Nothing on private worship, family
worship, etc., or "worship in the broad sense."
(vi)
Scripture fails to distinguish
"circumstance" in any of its three meanings, or to determine precisely which
circumstances are within the discretion of the church.
(vii) Hard
to apply the element/circumstance distinction.
(A) Is
song an element, or a circumstance?
(B) Is
instrumental music an element, or a circumstance?
(C) Is
marriage a proper element of worship?
e)
Contra Traditionalism
(1) Notice how the catechism forbids additions to and subtractions from biblical worship "whether invented and taken up by ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom…"
(2)
This is in line with the general
Reformation emphasis of reforming tradition according to the Word of God: sola
Scriptura.
(3)
By this principle, the Reformers rejected
large bodies of church tradition.
(4)
It also made worship more contemporary,
in the sense of emphasizing the use of the vernacular. Thus they applied Paul's
emphasis in 1 Cor. 14 on the need for intelligibility in worship so that all
(even unbelievers!) might be edified.
(5)
One should not, therefore, use the
Regulative Principle to enforce past modes of worship, unless Scripture itself
requires them.
(a)
The cult of plainness.
(b)
The cult of ceremony.
F.
Problem Areas.
1.
Pedagogical Use of Images.
a)
Advocates of images in the church have
often claimed that while images should not be worshipped, they may be venerated
(douloo), and may serve an important
educational function, especially among the illiterate.
b)
Protestants generally deny the
distinction between worship and veneration (but see later discussion on fifth
commandment). Yet, they have sometimes defended the use of images as an
educational tool. Such was Luther's argument: these are "books for the laity."
Compare quotes from him in Hodge, Systematic
Theology, III, 303f. Hodge does not himself contest Luther's point, though
he opposes the introduction of images into places of public worship because of
the possibility of abuse.
c)
The Heidelberg Catechism, however,
unambiguously opposes the pedagogical use of images (Questions 97, 98): God, it
says, "has willed that his church be instructed, not by dumb images, but by the
preaching of his word."
d)
Comments.
(1)
As we have seen, the second commandment
is not dealing, at least directly, with the use of images to instruct, but
rather with the use of images as mediators between God and man in worship. Does
instruction through images, then, involve "bowing down" before them? That is
the basic question.
(2)
The question cannot be answered by saying
that images are inaccurate representations of their objects. Cf. previous
discussion, C.1.b.v. No picture is exhaustive in its correspondence with the
thing pictured; but that does not imply any inaccuracy. Inaccuracy is found,
often, not in pictures themselves, but in our interpretations of them; and of
course, that sort of inaccuracy is found in verbal teaching also.
(3)
Similarly, it is not adequate to say that
since God cannot be pictured any image of him is a lie. As we have seen, there
are images of God in the world. Further, there are ways of representing God
which, rightly understood, do not mislead people about God's invisibility, etc.
It would be ridiculous to say that the upper circle of Van Til's two circle
diagram is a graven image in the sense of the second commandment. But short of
ruling out such markers, where do we draw the line? And, even if we grant the
substance of this objection, it does not apply to pictures that do not
claim to represent God.
(4)
As we have seen, it is true that between
the fall and the parousia God
instructs his people primarily by word rather than by image. However,
that is not an absolute principle. There have been theophanies, and these have
played an important role. Further, consider Jesus' use of illustrations of
spiritual truths from the natural world, the use of vivid metaphors and
"imagery" in the Bible, the temple ornaments, sacraments, etc.
(a)
This sort of teaching assumes that
created objects are in some measure fitted to illustrate (and thus to "image")
spiritual truth.
(b)
This sort of teaching, but not only this
sort, inevitably produces vivid mental images in us. If the
instructional use of images is to be rejected, then, it would seem that even
mental images must be avoided. Indeed, the Catechism opposes representations of
God even "inwardly in our mind." However, I must take exception here to the
Catechism. It seems almost impossible to think without some mental imagery.
(Think, "The Lord is my shepherd.") This consideration doesn't, of course, destroy
the objection to images. If images as such are wrong, then mental images are
too, and we must get rid of them no mater how hard it is. However, when the
objection requires such an extreme asceticism, we ought to think hard about it.
(5)
It seems to me that to deny the
pedagogical use of images one would have to show that being instructed by an
image amounts to bowing down to it. It is true that instruction is part of
worship, and that we are called to respond to instruction in awe, reverence,
obedience. That reverence, however, is not directed toward the medium of
instruction in any sense parallel to that of the idolater. We do not worship
our preacher as a representative of God. Thus, I am not convinced that an
adequate case has been made against the pedagogical use of images.
(6)
Still, we must be aware of the human
tendency to worship the creature above the creator. The presence of pictures in
the church is a very serious temptation for many people, especially when they
become a permanent part of the church architecture.
2.
Images of the Incarnate Christ.
a)
Many have objected to the use of any
pictures of the incarnate Christ on the ground of the second commandment. WLC
opposes "the making of any representation of God, of all or of any of the three
persons." Arguments:
(1)
Since God may not be pictured, and Jesus
is God, Jesus may not be pictured either.
(2)
Iconoclasts in the Eastern Church argued
that those who venerated images of Christ were circumscribing Jesus' divine
nature. To worship the picture would involve the assumption that his divine
nature is limited, circumscribed by the human nature and is therefore
picturable. Or it would imply that the human nature alone is pictured and thus
is separable from the divine nature.
(3)
Some have argued that since we don't know
what Jesus looked like, any picture will be a lie.
(4)
Some take the second commandment to
exclude any representations of deity.
(5)
The danger of idolatry, at least,
is always present when pictures of Jesus are used for any purpose.
b)
Comments.
Compare Jeffrey J. Myers, "Vere Homo:
The Case for Pictures of the Lord
Jesus Christ" (Niceville, FL: Biblical Horizons, 1993).
(1)
I disagree with a.(1) on two grounds:
(a)
As we have seen, Scripture does not teach
purely and simply that God cannot be pictured.
(b)
But even if God in himself were in every
sense unpicturable, it is clear that Christ, God incarnate, was
picturable. He could be seen, felt, touched, as well as heard. His face could
be held in memory (and there is surely no suggestion in Scripture that such
mental images were sinful! On the contrary, recall the emphasis upon the eyewitness
character of the apostolic testimony.) To deny this is docetism, pure and
simple. In this respect, clearly, the Old and New Covenants are sharply
different. At the establishment of the Old Covenant, there was emphatically no
form (Deuteronomy 4:15). At the establishment of the New, there emphatically
was (I John 1:1ff., etc.).
(2)
Reply to a.(2): The relation between the
two natures of Christ is, of course, a difficult matter at any point in theology.
I would argue, however, that Jesus himself is, in both natures, in his person,
image of God. In him, deity was in one sense "circumscribed," for all its
fullness dwelt in him; though in another sense, God was active beyond the body
of Jesus. To picture Jesus is to picture a divine person, not one "nature" or
other. To venerate such a picture, I believe, would be wrong for reasons
already adduced. I do not, however, think that an adequate argument has been
given against pedagogical use of such pictures.
(3)
Reply to a.(3): As we've said earlier, a
picture does not become a "lie" simply by being non-exhaustive. And, in fact,
we do know something about Jesus' looks: He was male, Semitic, in middle life,
was known to wear a robe, etc. And if the shroud of Turin turns out to be
authentic...
(4)
Reply to a (4): As we have seen, the
second commandment doesn't forbid all images of God, only those intended for
use in worship, as we earlier discussed it.
(5)
Reply to a.(5): True.
3.
Exclusive Psalmody:
Many have argued for the exclusive use of Psalms in worship on the ground of
the regulative principle. They argue that there is no command in
Scripture to sing anything other than Psalms; thus, all other songs are
excluded.
a)
The logical status of song: What is song?
Is it an "element" of worship [cf. above]? A "circumstance"? An aspect of some
other element?
(1)
We must not simply assume that it is an
independent element, as, e.g., John Murray does in his minority report to the
OPC General Assembly. Some argument is needed.
(2)
I maintain that song is not an
independent "element" of worship, but a form by which other elements are
carried on. It is a form of prayer, praise, teaching (Colossians 3:16), etc.
(a)
There is no sharp distinction between
sung and spoken words. Consider the continuum: speech, poetry, chanting, song.
At each point, there are gray areas (even more in tonal languages!).
(b)
Scripture regularly presents song as
having the same functions in worship as spoken words. Song has no functions
that cannot also be performed by spoken words.
(3)
If song is really a form of prayer,
teaching, etc., then, when we apply the regulative principle, we must ask, not
what Scripture commands us to sing, but rather what Scripture commands us to
pray, teach, etc. But all Christians agree that extra-Scriptural words may be
used in prayer, praise, and teaching.
b)
Scripture does command that, not only the
Psalms, but also the statutes of God (Psalm 119:54) and the deeds of God
throughout Redemptive History (Psalm 107:22) be sung in worship. I agree with
the argument of Vern Poythress (WTJ,
Fall, `74; Winter, `75) that the "singing of Christ among his people" applies
the whole history of redemption to all his people
(application involving, as we've seen, extra-Scriptural content). This is
unavoidable in any case. Even the translation of Scripture involves
application in this sense.
c)
Colossians 3:16; Ephesians 5:19.
(1)
It has been argued that "psalms, hymns,
and odes" in these passages all refer to Psalms. I don't think that point can
be established either way.
(2)
It has been argued that pneumatikos means "inspired," meaning
that the Church is to sing inspired songs. However, pneumatikos is not theopneustos.
One may be "spiritual" without being "inspired," I Corinthians 3:1,
Colossians 1:9.
(3)
Even if these passages refer exclusively
to Psalms, they do not limit the church to the exclusive use of Psalms if, as
we argued above, there are other Scriptural justifications for singing
uninspired hymns.
(4)
"Teaching" and "admonishing" suggest not
verbatim repetitions of Scripture, but the application of Scriptural
content. Cf. Poythress, op. cit.
d)
There is no clear biblical command to
sing the entire Book of Psalms.
(1)
Psalms
in Col. 3:16 and elsewhere is not a technical term for the biblical Book of
Psalms. It simply refers to songs of praise.
(2)
We should not assume, as many do, that
the Book of Psalms was given to us as an inspired "hymnal." There is evidence
(see my WST) that the book is given, essentially, for meditation and
instruction, as Psm. 1 suggests.
e)
Those who worship using Psalms exclusively
are never able to sing the name of Jesus. Nor are they able to praise God for
the completion of his redemptive work
in Christ.
f)
My conclusion: God commands us to sing as
part of worship, but there is no evident restriction on the words we sing, except,
of course, that they be scriptural and appropriate to the purposes of worship.
4.
The Use of Instruments in Worship.
a)
Many of the same people who hold to
exclusive psalmody also refuse the use of instruments in worship. Students,
therefore, often ask questions about that issue at this point in the course. It
is, however, a rather different sort of issue from the others—not nearly so
closely focused on the regulative principle. After all, there are as many
explicit commands to use instruments as anyone could wish in the Psalms
themselves! Here, paradoxically, some of the strongest advocates of the
regulative principle seek to show that those commands are not currently
applicable.
b)
The argument, essentially, is that
instrumental music in Scripture is part of the temple worship, specifically the
sacrificial ritual, and passes away with the temple. New Covenant worship on
this view is patterned on the synagogue, where there were no instruments.
c)
Comments:
(1)
A very strong argument is needed to
overcome the explicit commands in the Psalms to use instruments. The argument
under consideration is dubious at best.
(2)
No adequate argument is given to show
that instruments are necessarily connected with those aspects of temple worship
which pass away. (Obviously, many elements of temple worship do not pass
away—praise, singing, prayer, etc.) It is true that the instruments accompanied
the burnt offering (I Chronicles 29:27f.), but that was not their only
use. Cf. Numbers 10:2ff.; Ex. 15: 20-21, II Kings 11:14; I Chronicles
13:3, 15:24, 28; II Chronicles 5:5, 11-14; Ezra 3:10; I Samuel 18:6f.
It is impossible for all these and other references to pertain only to the
offerings. Instruments are routinely mentioned in the Psalms as accompaniment
to praise.
(3)
No exegetical argument can be given to
show that the "synagogue pattern" as such is in any sense normative for the
Christian church. Gerhard Delling, Worship
in the NT, points out that the
earliest references to Christian worship (as 1 Cor. 14) present a very
informal, Spirit-driven worship; the quasi-synagogue liturgy is a later
development.
(4)
No adequate argument is given to show
that the exclusion of instruments from the synagogue was based on principles
binding within the New Covenant. Some have suggested that this exclusion is
based on the mourning of the Jews in
exile, over the loss of the temple and the promised land.
(5)
Even if it were proven that instruments
have no independent role in New Covenant worship, they cannot be ruled
out. As a "circumstance", they provide the important function of coordinating
pitch and rhythm in the singing. Many Covenanter churches use
pitch-instruments. If we can give the congregation pitch on the first note of a
song, why not on the second, etc.? And if we can help with pitch of melody, why
not pitch of harmony? rhythm? volume? tone quality? Why shouldn't they be used
to teach the tunes before they are actually sung, etc.? Preludes, offertory
music, etc., are harder to defend on this basis. However, it could be argued
that some "background sound" in worship is unavoidable, and that such music is
at least preferable to bus noises, screaming children or chattering women.
(6)
The last point, plus the earlier
Scripture references, suggests that instrumental music is basically a form of
song, just as song is a form of speech [3.a., above]. Instruments are an
extension of the human voice. By them, we praise, rejoice, etc. If this
analysis is correct, then the use of instruments does not require any independent
Scriptural justification. To find out what Scripture allows us to play,
we ask what Scripture allows us to sing, and ultimately, to speak. From this
perspective, the prohibition of instruments begins to look like prohibition of
microphones, hearing aids, etc. The idea that we can blow air across our vocal
cords, or into electronic devices, but not through a mouthpiece, seems highly
arbitrary.
III.
The Third Commandment:
"Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will
not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."
Q. 112: What is
required in the third commandment?
A. The third commandment requires, That
the name of God, his titles, attributes, ordinances, the word, sacraments,
prayer, oaths, vows, lots, his works, and whatsoever else there is whereby he
makes himself known, be holily and reverently used in thought, meditation,
word, and writing; by an holy profession, and answerable conversation, to the
glory of God, and the good of ourselves, and others.
Q.
113: What are the sins forbidden in the third commandment?
A.
The sins forbidden in the third commandment are, the not using of God's name as
is required; and the abuse of it in an ignorant, vain, irreverent, profane,
superstitious, or wicked mentioning or otherwise using his titles, attributes,
ordinances, or works, by blasphemy, perjury; all sinful cursings, oaths, vows,
and lots; violating of our oaths and vows, if lawful, and fulfilling them, if
of things unlawful; murmuring and quarreling at, curious prying into, and
misapplying of God's decrees and providences; misinterpreting, misapplying, or
any way perverting the word, or any part of it, to profane jests, curious or
unprofitable questions, vain janglings, or the maintaining of false doctrines;
abusing it, the creatures, or any thing contained under the name of God, to
charms, or sinful lusts and practices; the maligning, scorning, reviling, or
any wise opposing of God's truth, grace, and ways; making profession of
religion in hypocrisy, or for sinister ends; being ashamed of it, or a shame to
it, by unconformable, unwise, unfruitful, and offensive walking, or backsliding
from it.
A.
Main Thrust.
1.
The Name of the Lord.
a)
Functions of names in Scripture (cf.
Lordship attributes).
(1)
Naming is an exercise of sovereignty
(Control).
(a)
One who names has control over the person
or thing that is named. The father names the child, the conqueror names the
conquered city, God names his people. God also names himself, indicating his
aseity, his self-control.
(b)
It was thought that to know
someone's name was to have power over that person—hence the belief in verbal
magic, the use of names in curses to bring injury, etc. As with all pagan
belief, this one is parasitic on the truth.
(i)
Knowing someone's name involves knowing
something about him [cf. ii., below], and hence having a certain advantage in
our dealings with him.
(ii)
When we know someone's name, we can call
on him and thus locate him [below, iii.] and elicit a response.
(c)
Sharing one's name with someone else,
then, creates a quasi-covenantal bond. It presupposes a particular kind of
trust based on obligations and expectations.
(d)
Remarkably, God shares his name with his
people in Scripture.
(i)
He reveals it to them, enabling them, not
to use it as a kind of verbal magic, for their own purposes, but rather to call
upon him for help (cf. Proverbs 18:10; Psalm 20:1f.). They have no power over
him, but they may avail themselves of his power for the sake of the covenant.
This is remarkable; it is very much like having power over God. Cf.
Genesis 32:22-32, especially verse 29.
(ii)
He calls the people by his name, identifying
his future with theirs. Thus, his omnipotence will never fail to keep them
safe.
(2)
Naming is characterizing (Authority).
(a)
In the biblical period, a person's name
usually meant something; it was not, as often today, a mere marker
chosen for its sound. Cf. the interpretations of "Abraham," "Israel," the name
changes, etc. Cf. also the use of "name" for "reputation," 1 Kings 4:31 (of
Solomon), Proverbs 22:1, etc. God's name is great, Psm. 8:1, 9.
(b)
God's names also characterize him: El Shaddai as "God Almighty," etc.
(c)
Therefore, God's name is revelation; it
communicates knowledge of him. And God's revelation is always authoritative.
Both second and third commandments focus on the revelation of God and its
bearing on our lives.
(d)
To deny God's power violates the name El
Shaddai; to claim God's favor by our own righteousness violates "The Lord our
righteousness" (Horton).
(3)
Naming is locating (Presence)
(a)
A name also serves to mark a person; it
furnishes a way of locating a person in a crowd. We find him by calling his
name, because where the name is, he is.
(b)
The name becomes closely identified with
the person. When someone laughs at your name, or forgets it, or mispronounces
it, you feel slighted. This is even more true in the broader use of "name" to
mean "reputation" (Proverbs 22:1, e.g.). To injure my good name is to injure
me; to revere my name is to revere me, etc.
(c)
God, too, is identified with his name.
(i)
To praise the name is to praise him, to
despise the name is to despise him, etc. We are saved for "his name's sake,"
Psm. 106:8. Glory is due his name (Psm. 29:2, 66:2, 96:8).
(ii)
To say that God's "name" dwells in the
angel of the Lord, or the tabernacle, or the temple, or Israel, etc., is to say
that God, Himself, dwells there.
(iii)
The name has divine attributes: Deuteronomy
28:58, Psm. 8:1, 9, etc. We praise it,
call upon it, etc. The name is God himself.
b)
Breadth and narrowness of the name.
(1)
Specific "names" of God: Elohim, Yahweh, El Shaddai, etc.
(2)
The "name" is God's total revelation of
himself to man.
(3)
The "name" of God himself [above,
a.iii.].
c)
Bearers of the name.
(1)
Theophanies: the glory, the angel, the
tabernacle, and the temple.
(2)
Christ, Acts 4:12, Phil. 2:9-11, John
1:14, Rev. 13:5-9.
(3)
God's people.
(4)
Creation. (Note here the way Jesus speaks
in Matthew 5:33-37, an exposition of the third commandment, and Matthew
23:16-22. One cannot, he teaches, avoid the obligations of the commandment by
substituting the name of a creature for the name of God. The reason is that all
creation is inseparable from God, intimately involved with him. To invoke
creation, then, is to invoke the name of God. Cf. Kline on creation as a
reflection of the Glory-cloud.)
d)
Implications.
(1)
Since God's name includes his total
revelation of himself, extending to all creation and particularly including
God's own people, this commandment has unlimited breadth. God's name is abused,
not only when we misuse a word like "God" or "Jesus," but also when we abuse
ourselves (note interesting linguistic parallels in Psalm 24:4) or despise
God's creation. All sin, then, may be seen as violation of the third
commandment.
(2)
We can also see how the commandment is
fulfilled in Christ. The name of Christ is the name of God par excellence, the only name by which we must be saved. He is the
final revelation of God. To despise the name of God, ultimately, is to despise
Jesus Christ.
2.
"Taking" the Name.
a)
We generally take the third commandment
as a rule concerning our language, and certainly that is proper. However, the
commandment itself does not refer to "speaking" or "uttering" the name (amar, dibber), but rather to "taking it up" (nasa': bear, carry, lift up).
b)
"Bearing" God's name certainly includes
our use of the name in our speech, but not only that: it includes all of our
relationships to the name of God.
(1)
God's people bear God's name in the sense
of carrying it in their own persons [cf. above, 1.c.]. Note, then, the
remarkable parallel to the third commandment in Psalm 24:4. The reference to
false swearing alludes to the commandment, and "lifted up his soul unto vanity"
is a precise linguistic parallel to the commandment, with "his soul"
substituted for "the name of the Lord thy God." That very substitution is a
remarkable thing. God is so identified with us that to defile our own souls is
in effect to defile his name. Cf. the second commandment which, as we have
seen, guards the uniqueness of man, particularly of redeemed man, as "image of
God." The commandments always have an existential reference.
(2)
Note also our relationships to the name
of God in creation and in Christ. All created things will either be "lifted up"
to God or to vanity.
(3)
Note, therefore, the narrowness and
breadth of the commandment. A commandment about false swearing but, by
implication, about all of life.
3.
"Vanity".
a)
The normal meaning of the Hebrew term is "emptiness,"
"purposelessness". On that basis, the commandment forbids us to use God's name
for unworthy purposes.
b)
Some have suggested that in this context
the term ought to mean "falsely," since that is emphasized in parallels such as
Leviticus 19:12, Psalm 24:4. Linguistic evidence for that use is lacking,
however, and the hypothesis is really unnecessary. Falsehood is one kind of
vanity, granted the first interpretation. Thus, even on the first view,
Leviticus 19:12 and Psalm 24:4 present valid applications of the commandment.
c)
Similarly, it could be argued that vanity
is a form of falsehood. If you use God's name in a pointless or worthless way,
you are falsifying it, exchanging it for a lie (cf. Romans 1).
d)
Thus, the argument between the two
interpretations is somewhat academic.
e)
On either view, we note again the breadth
of meaning here. Not only are we forbidden to make false statements using God's
name, but also to make any use of it which is unworthy of God.
I Corinthians 10:31.
4.
The sanction:
"for the Lord will not hold him guiltless."
a)
Blasphemy is considered a particularly
serious crime in Scripture. The death penalty is administered for it—even to
"strangers," Leviticus 24:15f. Cf. the penalty for cursing parents, Exodus
21:17. The crucifixion of Christ was based on a charge of blasphemy. The worst
sin noted by Jesus himself was the "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" (Matthew
12:22-32; Mark 3:22-30). This somberness, then, is reflected here in the lack
of a blessing sanction.
(i)
Douma, 80: "willfully misunderstanding and branding as a devilish act what in fact comes from the Holy Spirit." The Jews had
seen with their own eyes the work of God, in such a way that it could not have
been missed.
(ii)
Compare Heb. 10:26-31.
(iii)
Though said to be against the Spirit, the
focus of this sin is the Spirit's witness to the work of Christ. It is in
effect blasphemy against the holy name of Jesus.
b)
The curse formula does not mean that
forgiveness is excluded. The same curse attaches to every sin and is borne by
Christ on behalf of his people. However, that blasphemy which, by its very
nature, rejects forgiveness and rejects it unalterably will never be forgiven
(Matthew 12:22-32, parallels).
5.
Relation to First Two Commandments
(see chart).
a)
The first commandment requires us to worship
God exclusively; the second requires us to worship him only according to his
word. The third requires us, in our worship, to make a right use (nasa') of the word (the name). It is not
enough to have God's revelation; one must use it rightly.
b)
We can, then, see a parallel with the
"three perspectives." The first commandment sets forth the situational
perspective, the basic relation between the one God and his creatures. The
second sets forth the normative perspective, the basic revelation by which they
will be governed. The third sets forth the existential perspective, demanding a
right application of that revelation.
c)
Note, then, a certain trinitarian
structure: the one God, the word he speaks, and the application of that word
(always associated in Scripture with the Holy Spirit). We could summarize by
saying that God demands wholehearted covenant loyalty to him in the fullness of
his triune being, honoring his triune works. The first three commandments
together are a "love command," requiring exclusive covenant loyalty to the
triune God.
d)
The three together (as well as
individually) encompass, in a striking way, the totality of human life. Love
for God is demanded in our basic heart-orientation [I.], in word (our
life-norms) [II.], and in deed [III.—the act of application]. In III,
the word is applied to the heart as to all of life, completing the circle. Of
course, each, obeyed seriously, involves obedience to the others.
B.
Positive Uses of the Name of God.
We
have seen that the commandment applies to all of life. Here, however, we shall
focus on some of the matters to which the commandment applies more narrowly and
specifically, namely, the uses of the divine name in speech. (Even these, to be
sure, have a tendency to broaden out, as we shall see!) As a convenient
division, let us consider the uses of God's name in terms of man's kingly,
prophetic, and priestly functions (reflecting God's control, authority,
covenant solidarity). These uses are oath (kingly), confession (prophetic), and
blessing (priestly).
1.
Oaths (kingly
function).
a)
Concept: In an oath,
we call God to witness concerning the truth of a statement ("assertory") or
promise ("promissory"). We call upon God to use his power against us if we lie,
hence the emphasis on the power of an oath (kingly function). Cf.
Hebrews 6:16.
(1)
As such, an oath is an act of worship. It
has a godward reference. The honor of God is primarily in view in the third
commandment, the dangers of false oaths to our fellow men being central in the
ninth commandment. In this regard, cf. Deut. 10:20-21, Isaiah 45:23, 19:18,
65:16; Deuteronomy 6:13; Psalm 63:11, where swearing by God's name is a mark of
those who belong to God. (Notice how this "specific application" of the third
commandment itself becomes in Scripture a figure for the whole covenant
relation. In Romans 14:11 and Philippians 2:10, the "swearing" is equated with
confession and the latter with recognition of Christ's lordship.)
(2)
An oath also has a manward reference. It
is a way of maintaining stability, dependability, in a fallen world. Under
certain circumstances, a man's word was to be accepted without corroboration on
the basis of an oath (Exodus 22:10f.). The oath has always been a vital aspect
of the administration of civil law. Where the oath is despised, the result is government
corruption, civil injustice.
(3)
It is possible to be under oath in effect
even without uttering the name of God, although in general, oaths involve such
utterances.
(a)
Adjuration: In an adjuration, we are in
effect put under oath by another party, generally, someone in authority.
Cf. Joshua 7:19; Matthew 26:63f.
(b)
Solemn attestation, without specific use
of a divine name: Genesis 42:15, 31:53; Exodus 24:7; Deuteronomy 27:11ff.;
I Samuel 1:26; Joshua 24:19-22; Jesus' "Verily, verily."
(c)
Such borderline cases help us more
clearly to see how, in a sense, the believer is always under oath. Cf.
b.iv., below.
(4)
A vow is a promise to God that we will
perform a particular act. It is therefore, in effect, an oath-commitment.
b)
Obligation.
(1)
Scripture commands us to swear in God's
name: Exod. 22:10-11, Deuteronomy 6:13, 10:20; Isaiah 65:16; Jeremiah 12:16;
cf. Romans 14:11; Philippians 2:10.
(a)
The point is not that we ought to take
oaths every so often as a means of grace; rather, it is that when an oath is
necessary, it ought to be taken in the name of the true God, rather than in the
name of another god.
(b)
But once we come to believe in the true
God, taking an oath is an act of religious worship (Deut. 10:20, Isa. 19:18), a
way of confessing our faith in the true God.
(2)
Examples.
(a)
God himself: Genesis 22:16 (Hebrews
6:13-17), 26:3, Psalm 89:3, 49, 110:4, 132:11; Jeremiah 11:5; Ezekiel 33:11;
Luke 1:73.
(b)
Jesus accepts the adjuration, Matthew
26:63f., gives solemn attestations ("verily").
(c)
Paul: Romans 1:9, 9:1f.;
II Corinthians 1:23, 11:31; Galatians 1:20; Philippians 1:8;
I Thessalonians 2:5, 10, 5:27.
(d)
An angel in Rev. 10:5-6.
(e)
Many other biblical characters: Genesis
14:22ff., 21:23f., etc.
(f)
Common practice, Heb. 6:13-20.
(g)
Many examples of vows: cf. also Psalm
22:25, 50:14, 65:1, etc., where the paying of vows is a synecdoche for the
whole of religious worship.
(3)
Oath-bound commitment is the essence of
covenant obligation and religious confession: Romans 14:11; Philippians 2:10.
(4)
The prohibition of oaths in Matthew
5:33-37; James 5:12.
(a)
In view of (1) —(3) above, it would be
strange indeed if these passages intended to forbid oaths as such. Nowhere else
in Scripture is there any hint of rebuke to anyone for the mere act of taking
an oath (though, of course, there are examples of false oaths, unwise oaths,
etc.) The fact that oath-bound commitment is essential to our relation with God
is a particularly telling datum. The fact that God himself swears is also
important—more important than it may appear on the surface. It might be argued
that God's right to swear does not imply our right to swear. On the
other hand, in the context of Scripture, it is clear that God has far less
reason to swear than we do. If he, who is perfectly trustworthy and
self-attesting, sometimes confirms his word with an oath, surely, there are
times when we ought to do the same.
(b)
The context of Matthew 5:33-37 (cf.
23:16-22) suggests that Jesus is opposing a particular misuse of the oath,
namely, the use of substitutes for the divine name to escape full obligation.
Cf. below, c., also Murray, Principles,
168-174. James may be summarizing Matthew 5:33-37 to people already aware of
that context. "Do not swear at all"
means do not swear at all by heaven, earth, Jerusalem, etc.
(c)
In Rabbinic sources, with strikingly
similar language, the distinction is made between frivolous and unnecessary
oaths on the one hand and solemn oaths on the other. The former are forbidden
with the formula "Let your yes be yes and your no, no." Jesus, doubtless, has
this sort of problem in mind.
(d)
So these passages in effect place us
under continuous oath. Our yea is to be yea and our nay, nay. We are not to use
the institution of the oath as an excuse for carelessness with the truth when not
under oath (cf. the child's "I said I would, but I didn't promise.") All of our
speech ought to partake of the quality of "solemn attestation" [above,
a.iii.b)]. The use of the oath ought, at most, to be an accommodation to a
fallen situation. More on this under the ninth commandment.
c)
Oaths Resulting in Sin.
(1)
Oaths with wrong content (normative).
(a)
Idolatrous: in the name of a false god,
Exodus 23:13, cf. Deuteronomy 6:13, 10:20, etc.
(b)
Pledging something unlawful, 1 Sam. 25,
Matthew 14:7; Acts 23:12.
(i)
It is often argued that general oaths of
secrecy fall under this category—i.e., pledges to secrecy without knowledge of
what is to be kept secret. Vs. secret societies, etc.
(ii)
Similarly, oaths required in secret
societies and labor unions to put the interests of the organization above all
others—vs. the biblical "chief end of man."
(c)
The Catechism says that we should not
even keep an existing oath if it is "of things unlawful." When an existing oath
requires us to sin, it at that point becomes an unlawful oath and we are
released from keeping it. An oath cannot compel to sin.
(i)
Scripture does tell us to keep oaths "to
our own hurt" (Psm. 15:4), but not to the hurt of others, or injury to the name
of God.
(ii)
An oath of office may not require us to
obey unjust orders from governmental superiors (Nazis, etc.)
(iii)
An oath of secrecy may not compel us to
keep secret matters that God requires us to reveal.
(2)
Oaths not kept (situational).
(a)
Lying oaths, perjury, Leviticus 19:12;
Psalm 109:17-19, cf. Deuteronomy 23:21-23; Psalm 66:15f.; Mark 14:71.
(b)
Reneging on a vow which involves
self-sacrifice, Psalm 15:7; Acts 5:4.
(c)
Breaking vow to enemies: Gibeon, Josh.
9:1-27, 2 Sam. 21:1-14.
(d)
Evasions through use of substitutes for
God's name. [Cf. A.1.c., above; also Murray, 168-174].
(3)
Oaths arising from wrong attitudes
(existential).
(a)
Rash, foolish oaths, I Samuel 14:24f.;
Judges 11. On the difficult question of Jephthah's vow, I follow (with some
hesitation) the view that Jephthah dedicated his daughter to serve God in
perpetual virginity. [Cf. Keil and Delitsch, ad loc.]
(b)
Presumptuous swearing, Isaiah
48:1f.—i.e., assuming our right to swear in God's name despite unrepentant
sinfulness.
(c)
Over-frequent or trivial swearing, [cf.
above, b.iv.b) & c). Also, iv., below].
d)
Trivialization of God's Name.
(1)
In an oath, we invoke the name of God to
solemnize an affirmation or promise. In the last section c), we saw how certain
oaths violate the solemnity and sanctity of the divine name, though all oaths
assume that solemnity and appeal to it. However, it is also possible to sin by
renouncing this solemnity altogether—by frivolous or trivial use of God's name.
Such use of God's name is, in one sense, the opposite of the oath commanded in
Scripture.
(2)
Trivial cursing.
(a)
"Damn," "Hell," etc., even "My God,"
"Jesus," used casually in our society, as mere exclamations.
(b)
"Darn," "gosh," "golly," "jeez:"
(i)
Many are not even aware of the religious
origins of these terms.
(ii)
If used in serious oaths, they would be a
form of attempted mitigation (Matt. 23:16-22) condemned by Jesus; but most
people don't take them as such.
(c)
There is here usually no explicit
intention to blaspheme, as in the curses condemned in Scripture. So we should
not consider them to be as serious sins as self-conscious blasphemies.
(d)
Still, such curses are a symptom (Douma)
of the prevalent unbelief in society, unbelief that we cannot take casually.
Were our society fully Christian, God's name would be taken much more
seriously.
(e)
It is impossible to rebuke every such
curse that we hear. (Generally, it is impossible to rebuke every sin that we
observe; there are just too many.) But we should be alert to opportunities to
use these moments in witness.
(3)
Irreverence
(a)
T-shirt: "This blood's for you." Wrong?
(b)
Irreverence can be in the mind of the
beholder. The wearer might have mainly an evangelistic motive: a holy desire to
begin a conversation with someone about Christ. Perhaps there are things to be
said both pro and con here.
(c)
Use of popular musical styles in worship.
See my CWM.
(4)
Does this principle rule out all use of
God's name, even of God's revelation, in humor?
(a)
Ephesians 5:4 condemns "foolish talk" and
"coarse jesting," probably describing pointless silliness and gutter-type
language. All humor, however, cannot be shown to have these qualities.
(b)
There is humor in the Bible, but the
jokes are too old and familiar for us to appreciate. Matthew 19:24, 23:24; Acts
12:12-16, etc.
(c)
Humor has constructive, even serious
purposes at times: to display graphically the Creator / creature distinction,
etc. Even as sheer entertainment, it can have a recreative function. "Let there
be light" uttered while pulling the light switch—shows, in an ironic way, both
the analogy and the ridiculous disparity between man's technology and God's.
Scripture always speaks well of a "cheerful," "merry" or "glad" heart: Proverbs
15:13; II Corinthians 9:7, etc.
2.
Confession
(prophetic function): In confession, we acknowledge God's covenant name as our
own, ourselves as part of the covenant. In confessing before men, we also
proclaim to them the word of the Lord.
a)
Obligation
(note connection with salvation): Matthew 10:32; Romans 10:9f; I Peter
3:15.
b)
Related Sins.
(1)
Concealing our allegiance, John 12:42.
(2)
Denying Christ, Matthew 26:69ff.
(3)
Heresy.
(4)
Blasphemy, Psalm 74:10-18; Isaiah 52:5f.;
Revelation 16:9, 11, 21.
(a)
Punished by death, Leviticus 24:16, even
if a "stranger."
(b)
The most serious sin: blasphemy against
the Spirit, Matthew 12:31, persistent, defiant refusal to acknowledge God in
the face of the clearest knowledge.
(5)
Giving occasion to pagans to blaspheme, 2
Sam. 12:14, Ezek. 36:20-32.
(6)
Confessing God in a context in which it
will likely lead only to ridicule and blasphemy. (Douma: sometimes "speech is
silver, but silence is golden"), Matt. 26:63, 27:14.
(7)
Invoking God's name in support of causes
without biblical warrant, 1 Phil. 3:6, Tim. 1:13. "God on our side." "This is
God's will." Afrikaners, Nazis.
(8)
Using Scripture to support heresy, 2 Pet.
2:1-3, 3:16.
3.
Blessing
(priestly function): Given to God by man, the blessing is equivalent to praise;
directed to other men, it identifies them with God's name and thereby declares
there right to inherit the covenant promises. It is a form of prayer for them in
the name of God as well.
a)
Obligation:
Scripture calls us both to bless God's people and to intercede for all men in
prayer.
b)
Related Sins:
(1)
Reviling man, Matthew 5:22; Ephesians
4:29; James 3:9.
(a)
To mock the poor is to insult his maker,
Prov. 17:5. Cf. Cursing the deaf, Lev. 19:14.
(b)
The passages do not place a general
condemnation on strong language. The prophets and apostles frequently use
strong language against their hearers. Remarkably, Jesus Himself, having
condemned some for using moros
(Matthew 5:22), uses the same term against the Scribes and Pharisees (Matthew
23:17, 19). [Cf. Paul, Galatians 1:8f].
(c)
Evidently, just as there is a righteous
and an unrighteous anger (cf. sixth commandment), so there is an unrighteous
and a righteous use of strong language. The question is whether we are venting
our own (murderous) hatred or being zealous for the honor of God.
(2)
Incantations, use of God's name to
control him, Acts 19:13-17.
C.
Language in Literature and Drama.
1.
I have sometimes been asked, particularly
in the light of Ephesians 4:29, whether it is ever legitimate for a Christian
actor to utter blasphemies, e.g., while impersonating a character, or for a
Christian writer to put foul language in the mouth of a character.
2.
Ephesians 4:29 clearly does not mean to
forbid the mere physical act of uttering an unedifying expression. Scripture
itself records (and when we read Scripture, we read) the unedifying and even
blasphemous words of God's enemies. Of course, it records these for our
edification: unedifying words in an edifying context.
3.
The question, then, becomes: does a
literary or dramatic blasphemy serve an edifying purpose in its larger context?
It does, I think, when (as Scripture) it aims to portray unbelief as
unbelief—when its portrayal is, on Christian criteria, true.
4.
On this criterion, there ought, probably,
to be more blasphemy and vulgarity in Christian drama than there usually
is. These sins utterly pervade our society today, and any truthful portrayal of
that society ought to be consistent with that pervasiveness.
5.
We are not, however, on this basis, to
wallow in filth for its own sake. Whether we like it or not, that is what our
sinful nature would have us do. And we have great skill in rationalizing such
desires.
6.
The point is to present sin in its true
colors—as something ugly, destructive and, in a certain way, ridiculous. That
is the challenge to the Christian artist.
7.
"Method" acting—where an actor motivates
himself to portray, e.g., hate by generating feelings of hate within himself
will often be forbidden to the Christian. Yet, I suspect that morality and
dramatic effectiveness are not thereby opposed to one another. A good artist
must maintain both empathy with and distance from his subject, as did Jesus
when he loved and suffered for sinners, without losing his own identity as the
sinless, divine savior. A "method" which insists on identification without
distance cannot express redemptive involvement.
IV.
The Fourth Commandment:
"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do
all thy work; but the seventh day is a sabbath unto the Lord thy God: in it
thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is
within thy gates: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and
all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the
sabbath day, and hallowed it." (Exodus 20:8-11). In Deuteronomy 5:12-15, it
reads: "Observe the sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the Lord thy God commanded
thee. Six days shalt thou labor . . . nor thy stranger that is within
thy gates; that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou.
And thou shalt remember that thou was a servant in the land of Egypt, and the
Lord thy God brought thee out thence by a mighty hand and by an outstretched
arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day."
WLC,
Q116: What is required in the fourth
commandment?
A116: The fourth commandment requires of all men
the sanctifying or keeping holy to God such set times as he hath appointed in
his word, expressly one whole day in seven; which was the seventh from the
beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, and the first day of the
week ever since, and so to continue to the end of the world; which is the
Christian sabbath, and in the New Testament called The Lord's day.
Q117: How is the sabbath or the Lord's day to be
sanctified?
A117: The sabbath or Lord's day is to be sanctified
by an holy resting all the day, not only from such works as are at all times
sinful, but even from such worldly employments and recreations as are on other
days lawful; and making it our delight to spend the whole time (except so much
of it as is to betaken up in works of necessity and mercy) in the public and
private exercises of God's worship: and, to that end, we are to prepare our
hearts, and with such foresight, diligence, and moderation, to dispose and
seasonably dispatch our worldly business, that we may be the more free and fit
for the duties of that day.
Q119: What are the sins forbidden in the fourth
commandment?
A119: The
sins forbidden in the fourth commandment are, all omissions of the duties
required, all careless, negligent, and unprofitable performing of them, and being
weary of them; all profaning the day by idleness, and doing that which is in
itself sinful; and by all needless works, words, and thoughts, about our
worldly employments and recreations.
A.
Place of the Fourth Commandment in the
Decalogue (recall chart preceding discussion of First
Commandment).
1.
Despite Meredith Kline's refutation of
the traditional "two table" notion, there is a broad progression in the
Decalogue from commandments focusing on our relation to God to others focusing
on our relation to one another.
2.
In this progression, the Fourth
Commandment is something of a transition from the one focus to the other.
a)
Like I-III, it stresses the nature of
God's covenant with us and demands a certain kind of worship.
b)
Like V-X, it emphasizes our obligation to
love one another, to give rest as well as to rest ourselves, to
relativize social distinctions.
3.
The Fourth Commandment is more specific
than I-III on the kind of obedience required. It begins the recapitulation of
the creation ordinances which continues through X.
B.
The Divine Sabbath
(the rest of God himself from his creative work—Genesis 2:2f; Exodus 20:11).
1.
The divine Sabbath is essentially a
celebration of God's lordship over creation.
a)
At the start of the divine Sabbath, God's
creative work (including his creation of man) was finished. It was at this
point, then, that the creator first stood over against a finished creation. The
covenant-lordship relation was fully established by creation itself. The divine
Sabbath, then, was not enjoyed in the isolation of intra-divine life. From its
beginning, it was the celebration of a relation.
b)
Meredith Kline ("Primal Parousia," WTJ, Spring, 1978, 259ff.) describes the divine Sabbath as an
"enthronement," citing parallels with God's enthronement in the microcosmic "temple-house".
The enthronement follows divine victory and judgment (over the deep and
darkness) and the creation of the world as his royal dwelling.
2.
The Sabbath celebrates the lordship of
God in its three aspects.
a)
Control: Celebrates the divine victory—the
"penetration of the darkness by the divine theophanic glory" (Kline, 263).
b)
Authority: The Sabbath begins with the
declaration that creation is good and finished. Cf. Kline, 261.
c)
Presence in blessing and judgment:
(1)
Presence of the glory-theophany is his completed
temple.
(2)
Judicial approbation [b., above],
self-glorifying; cf. union of Sabbath with "Day of the Lord"—the day of
judgment (and grace) (Kline). On this day, he judges all that he has made, and
declares it good.
(3)
When God blesses his own Sabbath, he
blesses us. [cf. B.3.; C.1., below]
3.
The divine Sabbath was offered to Adam
and Eve.
a)
In Hebrews 3-4, the divine Sabbath is an
eschatological promise, representing the consummation of redemptive blessing
that follows the last judgment. God entered the Sabbath at the end of creation,
and his redeemed are to enter it at the end of this age. Note 4:4.
b)
Since from the beginning the Sabbath
celebrated a relation [1.a., above], it must have involved Adam and Eve
in some way.
c)
Since the account of the divine Sabbath follows
the "cultural mandate", the command to work, it is hard to avoid the
assumption that in the divine Sabbath God was promising rest to the man
and woman as the fulfillment of this labor: had they completed the cultural
mandate obediently, they would have entered the rest of God.
d)
This inference is only a probable one; so
far as I can tell, no passage of Scripture sets forth these concepts in so many
words. However, throughout Scripture, the divine Sabbath does function as an
eschatological promise, and it would be surprising if it did not also have that
function before the fall.
C.
The Human Sabbath: Its Meaning.
1.
Human Sabbath and Divine Sabbath.
a)
When God blessed his own Sabbath in
Genesis 2:3, he did it with man in view [cf. B.1.a., above; also 3.b.].
b)
When God blessed his own Sabbath, he did
it as an example for man (Exodus 20:11): Israel is to cease from work because
God ceased from work.
c)
When God blessed his own Sabbath, he also
blessed man's. Exodus 20:11 clearly refers to the human Sabbath, which is the
subject of the fourth commandment.
d)
Exodus 20:11 seems to assume some sort of
unity between the divine Sabbath and the human Sabbath, even though the former
is unending and the latter is a weekly occurrence.
(i)
"The" Sabbath referred to in the verse is
the human Sabbath [above, c.], but also the divine Sabbath (context of Genesis
2:3).
(ii)
Ex. 20:11 says that God blessed the human
Sabbath in Gen. 2:3.
e)
We shall see that the human Sabbath is a
covenantal sign and seal, a sacrament in effect. In that framework, we could
perhaps speak of the divine Sabbath as "present" in the human sacrament, as God
is present in Baptism and the Lord's Supper. In the weekly Sabbath, we not only
symbolize, but also enjoy by anticipation the divine Sabbath promised to God's
people.
f)
At the very least, the human Sabbath is a
replica of the divine, as man himself is made in the image of God. As man
himself is made to reflect God's glory, so the human Sabbath is made to reflect
the glory of the divine Sabbath.
2.
The Human Sabbath as a Meeting with God.
a)
On the Sabbath, God's rest and man's
intersect [1., above]. God who rests from his creative labors invites his
creatures to share his rest in anticipation of their final rest.
b)
If we share God's rest, then he must
share ours. As his day belongs to us, so ours, our Sabbath, belongs to him. Our
human Sabbath is set aside as his day.
(1)
Exodus 20:8: We are to "remember" (active
memorializing, not just recollecting) to keep the Sabbath "holy" (i.e., set
apart, given over to him). Cf. Exodus 31:13-17; Jeremiah 17:22; Isaiah 58:13;
Ezekiel 44:24. To "keep" God's Sabbaths, Lev. 19:3, 30, Isa. 56:4, Ezek. 20:10.
(2)
Verses 9, 10: "Thou shalt labor
. . . ." "do all thy work," sharply contrasted with "the
Sabbath of the Lord thy God." The six days are for our work; the seventh
exclusively for him.
(3)
The contrasts between our pleasure
and his day are frequent in the Old Testament. Note, e.g., Isaiah 58:13:
"If thou turn thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure
on my holy day. . . ." (note repetitions of these
contrasts in the passage).
(4)
That the human Sabbath belongs
particularly to the Lord is to be expected, since it reflects the divine
Sabbath, a celebration of God's Lordship, B.3.
(5)
Note the association of Christ with the
Sabbath as its Lord: Matthew 12:8, parallels, John 5:16f.
(6)
The "Lord's day," Revelation 1:10—D.,
below.
(7)
As a covenant sign [3.b., below], the
Sabbath is a mode of God's presence among his people.
(8)
Parallels between Sabbath and temple:
Leviticus 19:30, 26:12; Matthew 12:5f.
(9)
Parallel between the disciples' Sabbath
behavior and David's holy soldiers, the holy labors of priests: I Samuel
21:1-6; Matthew 12:3ff.
(10) Sabbath
legislation emphasizing the sanctification of the Sabbath (Exodus 31:12-17)
follows legislation on the sanctification, the tabernacle and priesthood
(25:1-31:11).
(11) Note
relations between the Sabbath as the divine day of judgment, association of
divine attributes with the latter, Kline, "Primal Parousia," 265.
c)
Thus, the Sabbath is a day of worship.
(1)
Even if no cultic rites were prescribed,
the Sabbath would be an act of worship, merely on the basis of what we have
already said.
(a)
To "meet with God" is to worship [2.a.].
(b)
To "remember" a particular day, to keep
it holy, is an act of worship [2.b.].
(c)
Celebrating the Lordship of God [2.b.iv.]
is an act of worship.
(2)
References to worship on the Sabbath.
(a)
Remember that "Sabbaths" are not only
weekly Sabbaths, but also feast days.
(b)
Weekly meetings of local worshippers
(Lev. 23:3, the synagogue). Jesus did endorse the synagogue pattern in this
respect: Luke 4:15ff., parallels.
(c)
Sabbath offerings: Numbers 28:9f.;
Ezekiel 45:17, 46:3; Nehemiah 10:32f.; Cf. Matthew 12:15f.
(d)
Song for the Sabbath Day, Psm. 92:1.
(e)
New Testament references to the first day
of the week.
(i)
Days on which the risen Christ meets his
people: Matt. 28:9, Luke 24:13-51; John
20:1, 19, 26; Revelation 1:10. Did Mary rest in Luke 10:38-42 because the
divine Sabbath was present in Christ (Cf. Matt. 11:28)? Cf. Christ as the
temple-Sabbath, Matthew 12:5f.
(ii)
Days on which the church met to worship,
doubtless in celebration of the Lord's victory, Acts 2:1, 20:6f.,
I Corinthians 16:1f., Revelation 1:10.
3.
The Human Sabbath is an Imitation of God.
The human
Sabbath is one with God's [above, 2.] but also distinct from it. It is a
"finite replica" (Kline). Thus, on the Sabbath, we not only share God's rest,
but we also seek to copy that rest at a finite, recurring level. In copying it,
we not only honor God's lordship [B.1.; C.2.]; we also seek to reflect that
lordship in our own vassal kingship. We exert our own lordship in its
"control, authority, presence."
a)
Control: the
sabbatical pattern as labor and rest.
(1)
Labor: ". . . six days shalt thou labor
. . . ."
(a)
It is sometimes overlooked that the
fourth commandment deals not only with rest, but also with labor. It
presupposes that we will work six days!
(b)
Calvin argues that the language of the
commandment does not present us with an obligation as much as a gift: God gives
us six days to do our work. There is much truth in this, but, of course,
divine gifts always come wrapped in obligations (and vice-versa!).
(c)
In the larger context of Scripture, labor
is a creation ordinance (Genesis 1:28ff.). In all periods of redemptive
history, idleness is condemned (Proverbs; II Thessalonians 3:10f.).
(d)
This commandment does not mean that we
must work for a particular employer 48 hours out of every week. "Labor" in the
Scriptural context, of course, includes more than the earning of family income.
It includes maintenance of the home, general cultural activity, etc.
(e)
Clearly, too, the commandment does not
mean that we may rest from labor only on Sabbath! Daily rest,
nourishment, recovery from illness, etc., is presupposed. Fanatical labor (the
modern "workaholic") is condemned as lacking trust in God (Psalm 127:1f.). Cf.
also Jesus in Mark 6:31.
(2)
Rest.
(a)
The Sabbath is essentially the
celebration of a completed work.
(i)
Cf. above, B.2. on the divine Sabbath.
(ii)
Tabernacle and temple construction
indicate provisional fulfillment of God's judgments and victory. Note
sabbatical pattern in their consecration (Kline); also passages like Exodus
39:43, 40:33.
(iii)
At the human level, the Sabbath is a
pause from our labors to take satisfaction in them as we consecrate them
to God.
(iv)
As such, the Sabbath anticipates (and
participates in!) the final rest from labor which we will enjoy in God's
presence. Cf. b., below.
(b)
What kind of work is prohibited?
(i)
Daily
labor (Ex. 31:13-17), including plowing and harvesting (34:21), commerce and
transport of goods (Amos 8:4-6, Jer. 17:21).
(ii)
Building of fires (Ex. 35:3, Num. 15:32-26)?
I suspect these texts do not pertain to fires for heating and cooking. See
James Jordan, Sabbath Breaking and the
Death Penalty.
(A) Pi'el
form in Ex. 35:3 typically refers to ceremonial burning (Lev. 6:12, Neh. 10:35,
2 Chron. 4:20, 13:11, etc.), or the fire of divine judgment (Ezek. 20:48,
39:9f, Isa. 4:4, etc.).
(B) On
the Sabbath, God's altar-fire ("hearth fire") was intensified (Num. 28:1-10).
(C) So
evidently this is a case like the "strange fire" in Lev. 10:1. No human fire
must be intensified to rival God's ceremonial fire on the Sabbath day.
(D) The
wood gatherer in Num. 15 is held in custody, because the precise penalty for
his sin has not been revealed (verse 34).
1.
Evidently his crime is not that of
ordinary work on the Sabbath, but a "high handed" sin (discussed in context,
verses 22ff). Mere working on the Sabbath was not a capital crime in Ex.
16:27-30, Neh. 13:19-22.
2.
Evidently he was attempting to stoke up his fire in a way forbidden by Ex. 35:3.
(iii) So I take these
references as ceremonial laws, not binding on New Testament Christians.
(c)
After the fall, the Sabbath is a rest,
not only from labor, but also from the toil and misery associated with labor in
a fallen world. Hence its redemptive significance, cf. b., below.
(d)
The rest is physical, not merely
spiritual. Note emphasis on bearing burdens, Jeremiah 17:21f., Nehemiah
13:15ff, refreshment, Ex. 23:12, delight, Isa. 58:13.
(e)
The Sabbath thus draws our attention to
our nature as historical creatures, the importance of progress,
development, goal.
(f)
A blessing, Mark 2:27.
(3)
Recreation: Does resting on the Sabbath
preclude it?
(a)
If recreation is pleasurable activity
different from one's daily labors, then the Sabbath-rest is recreation, par excellence.
(i)
Note earlier references to the Sabbath as
a "celebration," association of Sabbaths with Old Testament feasts.
(ii)
The Sabbath a "delight"—Isaiah 58:13f.
(b)
As for the propriety of "pleasurable
activities" on Sabbath, Scripture says nothing specific.
(i)
Isaiah 58:13f. forbids doing your "own
pleasure" as opposed to God's. "Pleasure" here, however, means "will".
(ii)
"Rest" is clearly not mere inactivity. If
"rest" includes activities, these must be classified as recreations.
(iii)
Note reference to "refreshment" in Exodus
31:17, 23:12.
(c)
The Westminster
Confession forbids on the Sabbath all "works, words and thoughts about
their worldly employments and recreations. . . ." (XXI:8) because it
sees the function of the day wholly in terms of worship. We shall discuss later
[below, D.] the precise nature of the New Covenant obligation. In the Old
Covenant, at any rate, such a statement would not be appropriate:
(i)
Because under the Old Covenant, the day
was not spent wholly in "public and private" worship, except insofar as
the sanctification of the day itself was an act of worship.
(ii)
Because the principle of "consecration of
labor" requires that we think and speak about the activities of the six
days.
(iii)
Because the Old Covenant emphasis is upon
rest rather than worship (at least worship in the cultic sense). The WCF sees
rest only as a ceasing from daily labor to make time for worship. But in
Scripture, the rest is important in itself. It speaks of "rest" and
"refreshment" apart from worship.
(d)
Clearly, however, even the Old Covenant
forbids, by implication, any recreation that detracts from the meaning of the
day.
(4)
Works of Necessity.
(a)
God did not intend the Sabbath to destroy
man, but to be a blessing, Mark 2:27. This is characteristic of the law in
general (cf. earlier discussion of the law as way of life).
(b)
What is necessary to life and worship,
therefore, may be done on the Sabbath.
(i)
Eating, Matthew 12:1-8.
(ii)
Arrangements for worship, Matthew 12:5f.
(iii)
Healing, Matthew 12:10-13; Luke 14:1ff.;
John 5:1ff. Actually, these passages are better characterized as "works of
mercy" [c., below], since it was not strictly necessary for these to be
done on Sabbath. However, the two categories do overlap. "Necessity" is a
relative matter. It could be argued that even eating is not strictly
"necessary". Yet, it is approved.
(iv)
Rescuing of people and animals, Luke
14:5. Clearly, also certain forms of business maintenance are also necessary,
by implication. Not only must oxen be rescued, but also fed, milked, etc. One
might argue that the work of tending animals is forbidden to a strict
Sabbatarian; however, Scripture never draws this inference. This work, though
not absolutely necessary, and even though it involves some Sabbath
labor, is accepted as a godly occupation.
(v)
Warfare
(A) It
was generally accepted that a people could defend themselves against attack on
Sabbath (cf. I Maccabbees 2:41)—an implication of the last point, as I see it.
(B) Israel
circled Jericho seven times on the Sabbath, after which the walls fell down
(Josh 6:15-20).
(C) Jehoiada
the priest carried out plot against wicked Queen Athaliah on Sabbath (2 Kings
11, 2 Chron. 22:10-23:15).
(vi)
Travel to consult a prophet (2 Kings
4:23): Shunammite woman traveled 20 miles.
(vii) Possibility
of an alternate day of worship for those who must travel on business, Num.
9:9-13 on the Passover. See Jordan, Sabbath
Breaking and the Death Penalty, 89-90.
(viii)The "necessity"
in view here, then, is not some sort of abstract "absolute" necessity, but the
necessity of those activities which keep human life n an even keel. It can be
only vaguely defined, and its application requires spiritual perception. There
are many situations in modern business life, e.g., when some Sabbath work
appears "necessary" on the above criteria. It is difficult to be dogmatic in
such areas, but one must ask if the Sabbatarian does not have a responsibility
to seek to minimize the cases where alleged, or even real, necessities arise.
b)
Authority:
the Sabbath as covenant sign, Ex. 31:13, Isa. 56:4, Ezek. 20:18-30.
The Divine
Sabbath is a day on which God authoritatively declares his victory. Similarly,
the human Sabbath, is a day on which the truth of God is to be declared and
which, by its very nature, proclaims the covenant victory of God.
(1)
Declaring God's acts: Three dimensions of
God's Lordship over time.
(a)
Past.
(i)
Creation, Genesis 2:3; Exodus 20:11. The
victory of God over the "deep darkness". (?)
(ii)
Redemption:
(a)
From Egypt, Deuteronomy 5:15.
(b)
Judgment on Canaan (Kline).
(c)
The New Testament Lord's Day as memorial
of the Resurrection.
(b)
Present: God's meeting with us now as his
Sabbath intersects ours [above B.; C.1; C.2.].
(c)
Future: God's eschatological victory
(Kline).
(2)
Declaring our membership in the covenant.
(a)
Before the fall, the Sabbath may have
conveyed the promise of blessing within the Covenant of Works (Kline's Covenant of Creation). If Adam had
obeyed, the blessing would have been his.
(b)
The Sabbath was given as a sign to
Israel, Exodus 31:13-17; Ezekiel 20:12, 20.
(i)
It declares the Lordship of God, 31:13,
and, thus, Israel's relation to God.
(ii)
Sabbath-breaking is not only sin against
God, but cuts one off from God's people, (v. 14).
(iii)
The Sabbath is identified with the
covenant, v. 16.
(iv)
The Sabbath therefore marks Israel as
God's holy nation. It has a sacramental function.
(c)
The prohibition of Sabbath labor,
however, extended to "strangers," whose covenant status was ambiguous. (Some
were uncircumcised and, thus, incapable of taking the Passover, or of sharing
the liberation at the Jubilee. Yet, they had certain privileges and protections
under the law, and they were involved in long-range covenant promises—e.g.,
Ezekiel 47:22ff.)
(d)
The Sabbath's sacramental function is
also seen in the fact that it signifies and embodies the presence of God's own
rest [above, C.1., 2.]. On Sabbath and in the Sabbath, God is sacramentally
present with his people.
(e)
Revelation 1:10 suggests a sacramental
significance for the "Lord's day" (Kuriake
hemera) in the New Covenant. Cf. the Lord's Supper as deipnon kuriakon in I Corinthians 11:20. The "Lord's day"
bears the same relation to the final "day of the Lord" as the "Lord's Supper"
bears to the final Supper of the Lamb. Cf. below, D.4.c.i.c).
c)
Presence in blessing and judgment:
Man is to imitate God by dispensing blessing and judgment on the Sabbath.
Judgment is seen in the disciplinary and preaching functions of the church to
some extent (Isaiah 6), but the Scriptural emphasis (as with the divine
Sabbath) is on the Sabbath as mercy. "Deeds of mercy" are presented in
Scripture, not as a mere exception to the general prohibition of labor (as some
Reformed treatments suggest), but as a central function of the Sabbath.
(1)
Giving rest.
(a)
We are not only to rest ourselves, but
also to give rest—to our families, servants, animals, strangers (Exodus
20:10, 23:12; note particular emphasis on this point in Deuteronomy 5:14f.).
(b)
Thus, the Sabbath is given
covenantally—to the whole body, not just to individuals. [Cf. b.ii., above.]
But notice also the ambiguous status of the "stranger", b.ii.c).
(c)
"The poor live as princes for one day a
week," D. Wallace. On this day, no one gains economic advantage over anyone. As
we come together before God, our essential oneness becomes clearer, and our
priorities are adjusted.
(d)
In the system of Sabbatical years, an
extension of the weekly Sabbath, we also give rest to the land. Exodus
23:10f.; Leviticus 25:1ff. This is important to a biblical ecology, but also
has reference to the needs of the poor, strangers, etc. Cf. Deuteronomy 15:1-6.
(e)
Note contexts of Isaiah 58:13f., verses
3ff.
(f)
The Sabbath law thus forbids God's people
from giving supreme priority to economic gain or the other rewards of daily
life.
(g)
As noted earlier, the Sabbath typifies
rest from toil, not from sin as such. Yet, indirectly, it does encourage trust
in grace rather than works. Our weekly rest must be taken, whether earned or
not, because God has given it. The consummation of our week, its
"meaning", is not the result of anything we have done. Our "meeting with
God" is not by works.
(2)
Giving liberty.
(a)
The Sabbath commemorates liberation from
bondage, Deuteronomy 5:15. [Cf. above, i.c)-d)].
(b)
Release of debts in sabbatical years,
release of Hebrew servants, Exodus 21:1ff.; Deuteronomy 15:1-18; Jeremiah
34:8ff.
(c)
Release of debts and return of sold
property in the Jubilee, Leviticus 25:8-17. Note extensive implications of this
for the economy of Israel, outlined in the rest of Leviticus.
(3)
Healing: It appears
that Jesus healed on the Sabbath, not out of necessity, but out of deliberate
choice. He made this choice, not merely to provoke the Pharisees, but because
of his conviction as to the nature of the Sabbath: Matthew 12:9-13; Mark 3:1-5;
Luke 6:6-10; John 5:1-17. Even on the Sabbath, God desires "mercy and not
sacrifice" (Matthew 12:8). It is "lawful to do well" on the Sabbath
(12:12). The Pharisees had put such emphasis on the aspect of physical rest
that they had missed this "weightier matter" of the law.
(4)
Judgment:
1 Cor. 5:4-5, 11:31-2, 14:29.
d)
Summary.
We
are called to imitate God in rest, in declaring our union with him, and in
showing mercy. In all of these activities, we declare that God is our Lord,
that our hope is not bound up with our daily activities, but with his promise.
Thus, we do not compete with one another for God's blessing, but we share it
liberally.
4.
Sins connected with the Sabbath (Douma)
a.
Working for selfish gain, Neh. 13:15-22.
b.
Resting, but plotting ways of defrauding
others, Amos 8:5.
c.
Scribes and Pharisees: defining
Sabbath-breaking so precisely as to add to God's Word, John 5:9-10.
D.
The Sabbath as a New Covenant Obligation.
1.
Reformed Views
(moving from "least" to "most" Sabbatarian).
a)
Calvin (Institutes, II, viii, 31-34) (Reflected in continental Reformed
creeds).
(1)
With the coming of the New Covenant,
there is no particular day (or even weekly interval) at which Christians are
obligated to abstain from work and engage in worship, etc.
(2)
Such days are shadows which pass away in
Christ. Calvin quotes Colossians 2:17; Galatians 4:10f.; Romans 14:5. He
comments, "Who but madmen cannot see what the apostle means?"
(3)
Positively, we keep the Fourth
Commandment today:
(a)
By laying aside our works and trusting
God's grace for salvation.
(b)
By consecrating all our time to the Lord.
(c)
By giving rest to servants, etc., and
setting aside time for worship.
b)
Donald Carson, From Sabbath to Sunday (Zondervan).
(1)
As with Calvin, the Sabbath is abolished
in the New Covenant: "If we keep the Sabbath in this dispensation, we are again
denying Christ."
(2)
However, the Sabbath is now replaced by
the Lord's Day, which commemorates the Resurrection and symbolizes the
accomplishment of our rest in Christ.
(3)
We are obligated to keep the first
day of the week (no other) as a day of worship. No cessation of work is
required.
c)
Early Kline (from my student notes in Old
Testament Biblical Theology)
(1)
Same as i., ii. under c., above.
(2)
In the Mosaic Covenant, the emphasis is
placed upon rest, rather than worship, as the essence of the Sabbath command.
(3)
Therefore, the Westminster Confession
cannot be followed when it insists that the whole day be taken up in deeds of
worship, necessity and mercy. Rest, and hence recreation, are also appropriate,
even centrally important, to the meaning of the day.
(4)
Later, Kline revised his position to
argue that in the New Covenant the Sabbath is a day of worship, but not a day
of resting from all labor. He argued that the rest from labor was part of the
"union of culture and cult" under the Mosaic theocracy. I don't find that view
persuasive, and I will not discuss it here.
d)
The "Puritan" view (Westminster
Standards).
(1)
The New Testament Lord's Day is
essentially the same as the Old Testament Sabbath, now properly observed on the
first day of the week rather than the seventh.
(2)
On this Christian Sabbath, believers must
rest "from their own works, words and thoughts about their worldly employments
and recreations" (Westminster Confession
of Faith, XXI, 8).
(3)
The whole day is to be taken up "in the
public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and
mercy."
2.
Sabbath and Creation.
a)
A creation ordinance is a divine
institution or command which is in effect from man's creation until the
consummation, such as labor (Genesis 1:28ff.), marriage (1:28; 2:24f.).
b)
Creation ordinances do not pass away as
the history of redemption progresses, because they are grounded in man's nature
as:
·
created and
·
not yet glorified—conditions which exist
until the consummation.
c)
Exodus 20:11 teaches that God's blessing
of "the Sabbath" in Genesis 2:3 was in effect the sanctifying of man's Sabbath,
and that, for that reason alone, the Sabbath must be observed, apart from
anything peculiar to the Mosaic economy. [Cf. argument in C.1.a-c., above].
d)
Note the "creation sanction" also in
Exodus 31:17. Although this ground of Sabbath-keeping is not mentioned in
Deuteronomy 5:12-15, the phrase "as the Lord thy God commanded thee" clearly
refers back to Exodus 20:11 and reaffirms what was said there.
e)
There is a lack of evidence for Sabbath-keeping
prior to the Exodus from Egypt, and that poses a problem for the view that the
Sabbath is a creation ordinance. If it were a creation ordinance, ought it not
to have been observed perpetually?
(1)
Exodus 16:22-30 shows that Sabbath
observance was known before the giving of the Decalogue, and it presupposes
some common knowledge of the custom.
(2)
Many divine laws, clearly revealed, were
neglected for long periods of time: monogamy, the Old Testament sabbatical
years and Jubilee, etc.
f)
Mark 2:27, "The Sabbath was made for man,
not man for the Sabbath."
(1)
Here, Jesus grounds the Sabbath ordinance
in the needs of man as man, not in anything distinctive to the Mosaic economy (Anthropes—generic man)
(2)
"Was made" harks back to the original
institution of the Sabbath at creation—with man on the scene.
(3)
In context, Jesus draws a parallel
between his disciples, who fed themselves on the Sabbath, and David's men, who
took the consecrated bread. He says that the Sabbath was not intended to
frustrate such natural needs, but to meet them. Again, the created nature of
man (needing food and rest) is in view.
(4)
Jesus here gives no hint that in his
kingdom there will be any change in the nature of the Sabbath. One might have
expected him to do so, by analogy with his teaching about the place of worship
in John 4.
g)
Mark 2:28, ". . . so that the Son of Man
is Lord even of the Sabbath."
(1)
It is unlikely that "Son of Man" here
means simply "man." Rather, it is a title of Christ, correlate with his
distinctive lordship over the Sabbath.
(2)
"Son of Man" does not often focus on the
distinctively human nature of Christ, but in this case, it does. Jesus says
that the Sabbath is for man and that he is Lord of it by virtue
of his Lordship over what pertains to man, that Lordship summarized in the
expression "Son of Man."
(3)
In Dan. 7, it appears that the Son of Man
is a representative of "the saints" (verses 18), by whom the saints receive the
kingdom (22). Compare Paul's description of Christ as second Adam.
(4)
Again, Jesus is dealing with his relation
to mankind as such. He is not speaking specifically as Israel's Messiah, nor of
any element of the Sabbath institution distinctive to Israel.
(5)
In claiming Lordship "even" of the
Sabbath, Jesus makes a momentous claim indeed. The Sabbath has always been "the
Sabbath of the Lord your God". Jesus now places himself in the position of Yahweh. Yet, even in such a claim, Jesus
gives no suggestion that he will abrogate or substantially alter the Sabbath
obligation. Our impression is that he Sabbath continues in Jesus' kingdom as
before, under his Lordship as Son of Man.
h)
John 5:17: "My father worketh hitherto,
and I work."
(1)
Here, Jesus makes a clear claim to deity,
for which the Jews seek to kill him (v. 18).
(2)
As deity, then, Jesus claims the right to
set the terms for Sabbath observance.
(3)
As incarnate deity, Jesus
expresses submission to the Father. He is only imitating what the Father does,
sharing the work of the Father (mercy). He claims the right to imitate not only
the Father's Sabbath rest, but also the Father's Sabbath activity.
(4)
Again, there is no hint of any basis for
Sabbath observance distinctive to the Mosaic economy, or any major change to be
brought in by Jesus. The basis of Sabbath observance here is the imitation of
God's rest, the "creation sanction" of Exodus 20:11 and Genesis 2:3.
i)
Hebrews 4.
(1)
Here, the "rest" promised to the people
of God is traced back to creation (compare 4:3f., 10 with Genesis 2:3). Note,
also, the references to creation in Psalm 95 (quoted in Hebrews 3:7ff.) as the
basis for the exhortation to hearken and enter God's rest.
(2)
The Sabbath, as we have seen, is a sign
of that eschatological rest, entered by God at creation, promised to man at the
consummation (Gaffin in OPC Minutes of
the 40th General Assembly).
(3)
Thus, (however one translates sabbatismos in 4:9), the basis of
Sabbath observance is traced back to the creation order, not to the distinctive
provisions of the Mosaic Covenant.
(4)
Hebrews, incidentally, is much concerned
with distinguishing the permanent from the temporary in God's purposes. But
there is no indication here that Christ has abolished Sabbath observance .
j)
Summary.
(1)
Scripture presents the creation order as
a sufficient ground of Sabbath observance. Since that creation structure will
not change until the consummation, the Sabbath obligation continues along with
it.
(2)
These considerations more or less
eliminate the views described as 1.a-b., above. I say "more or less" because we
have not yet considered some New Testament texts thought to militate against
what we have said here. However, any view placing great weight on those texts
must address itself to the arguments advanced here.
(3)
Since the original creation ordinance
deals with a cessation from work, and, since all references to the Sabbath
which refer to creation speak in terms of a rest from labor, view 1.c. must be
seriously questioned. However, we have yet to consider some of Kline's
argumentation which attempts to account for the data.
3.
Sabbath as Redemptive Promise.
a)
Although the creation order is a
sufficient ground for Sabbath observance, it is not the only ground
given for it in Scripture. Scripture also calls us to keep the Sabbath because
we are the redeemed people of God. Briefly: we are to remember our past
deliverance from toil and to anticipate our future deliverance.
b)
Rest as a redemptive blessing.
(1)
Rest becomes a redemptive blessing
because of the curse on the ground and on man's labor, Genesis 3:17-19. Had man
not fallen, rest would have been a physical necessity and a precious time of
communion with God, but would not have been a specifically redemptive category.
(a)
References to man's labor as toil and
misery, Ecclesiastes 2; Psalm 90.
(b)
The wicked have no genuine peace, rest:
Isaiah 48:22; 57:21.
(c)
God gives his people rest: Psalm 127:2;
Matthew 11:28 (rest in taking on a yoke!); Revelation 14:13. Note the
descriptions of the toil in Egypt from which the people were redeemed.
(2)
The focus in these passages is not on
rest as a relief from sin as such, but as a relief from toil, sorrow, misery
which sin brings into the world. Labor itself is not sinful, but is cursed because
of sin. Similarly, rest is not itself redemption, but is a fruit of redemption,
a blessing brought by redemption.
c)
Sabbath as redemptive rest.
(1)
The Sabbath is a present rest which
recalls the redemptive rest given in the past and anticipates the greater rest
to come.
(a)
Deuteronomy 5:15 emphasizes this, and it
is implicit in Exodus 20, when verses 8-11 are seen as motivated by the preface
(verse 2).
(b)
This is also the major thrust of Hebrews
3-4, though as we mentioned earlier, the creation sanction is also in view
here.
(2)
As in the general references to rest
[above, b.], these passages do not picture the Sabbath as a symbol of
redemption as such, but as a symbol of rest from the toil and misery brought
into the world by sin and the curse. The Sabbath, after all, is not a rest from
sin, but from labor (which is good, though difficult). We are not told to sin
six days and to be righteous the seventh, but to work six days and rest the
seventh.
(3)
If the Sabbath directly symbolized
redemption from sin, one could argue that it is abrogated in the New Covenant
since redemption has already been achieved. But on the contrary: the Sabbath
symbolizes something still future—the final rest from toil. (Cf. Gaffin's
arguments on the future reference of "rest" in Hebrews 3 and 4.) Thus, the
Sabbath is not superfluous. As a symbol and a foretaste, it remains a great
blessing.
(4)
Review the passages dealing with Jesus'
relation to the Sabbath: Mark 2:27f. and parallels; John 5:17f.; Hebrews
3:7-4:13. None of these suggest that Jesus intended the Sabbath to be abrogated
or drastically changed in his kingdom. [Cf. above, 2.f. Cf. also Luke 4:15-28,
parallels, 23:56].
d)
Summary: There is
nothing in the nature of the redemptive promise that would suggest some basic
alteration in the law governing the weekly Sabbath. On the contrary, the
continued keeping of the Sabbath is appropriate in the New Covenant as a type
and foretaste of the final consummation rest which is yet to come.
4.
"Day-Keeping" in the New Covenant:
Romans 14:5; Galatians 4:9ff.; Colossians 2:16f.
a)
These passages represent the strongest
argument in favor of Calvin's view. On that view, the passages present the
Sabbath and all "day-keeping" as Old Covenant "shadows" which pass away in
Christ. The views of Carson and others can also appeal to these passages as
presenting a radical change in the application of the fourth commandment.
b)
Although I favor the "early Kline" view
on the basis of the evidence presented under 2 and 3 above, I am not fully persuaded
that adherents of this view have given a fully adequate account of these texts.
c)
There are, however, some considerations
which suggest alternative exegetical possibilities and which weaken
arguments from these texts adduced to prove "less Sabbatarian" views.
(1)
Clearly, these texts cannot be used to
exclude day-keeping of every sort; for, elsewhere in the New Testament,
day-keeping is required.
(a)
The early church met at specific times,
obviously, and Hebrews 10:25 makes it clear that attendance at such meetings is
not an optional matter. Thus, in the New Covenant, there are some days and
times set aside for certain specific purposes. [Cf. C.2.c.ii.d), above].
(b)
For the Corinthian church, Paul ordains a
certain day, the first day, on which offerings are to be brought,
I Corinthians 16:1f.
(c)
The "Lord's day" (kuriake hemera) in Revelation 1:10.
(i)
Not the final "day of the Lord". The
context makes clear that this is a day in John's present experience.
(ii)
It was probably a time of worship, as is
suggested, but not required, by the phrase "in the Spirit".
(iii)
Clearly, it is a day which belongs to the
Lord in a special way. [Cf. deipnon
kuriakon in I Corinthians 11:20. For sacramental sense, see above
C.3.b.ii.e)].
(iv)
The regular Scriptural reference to
Sabbaths as "sabbath of the Lord" [C.2.b., above] suggests that the Lord's Day
here is also a Sabbath.
(v)
In any case, clearly, this is a special
day, one which bears a distinctive relation to the Lord. It is not
proper, in this case, to "regard every day alike" (Romans 14:5).
(vi)
Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho) refers to the Jewish Sabbath as kuriake. For other church Fathers, kuriake is Sunday (Didache, 14:1, Ignatius, Magnesians
9:1). Other references in Lampe, Patristic
Greek Lexicon under kuriakos.
(d) Though the Jews charges Paul with error on matters such as circumcision and the temple, there is no record of their charging him with breaking the Sabbath.
(e) Evidently, therefore, Romans 14:5 etc. do not rule out all observance of days or even make such observance optional in every case. It thus becomes necessary, on any view, to distinguish in these passages what sort of obligation is denied and what sort is not denied. Such a distinction, on any view, will not appear on the surface. So, it is not a question of one view taking these texts at "face value" while the other views must engage in elaborate theological rationalizations. All must do some "theologizing" in interpreting these texts. We cannot simply take them at "face value" because it is clear that the first readers of these letters would have made certain assumptions, certain distinctions that do not appear evident to us from the passages themselves.
(2)
Neither the Romans nor the Galatians
passage mentions specifically the Sabbath. There were many other "days"
observed in the Old Covenant economy, and it is certainly not impossible that
the passages refer to these other days, or even to extra-biblical festivals.
Remember that we must assume the Galatians and Romans capable of making some
distinctions not explicitly noted in the passages. [Above, i.d).]
(3)
Rom. 14:5
(a)
In context, may refer to days of fasting;
but the Sabbath, of course, is a day of feasting.
(b)
Note that it says we may abstain from any
food; but obviously it is not saying that we may abstain from the Lord's
Supper.
(4)
Galatians 4:10
(a)
The specific problem in Galatians is
works-righteousness. It is certainly possible to see Paul arguing here, not
against observance of days as such, but against observance of days (even the
Sabbath!) as a means of self-justification. Similarly: Paul might appear to be
forbidding circumcision in Galatians 5:2f.; but, under other circumstances,
when the issue of justification was not at stake, Paul not only permitted but
performed circumcision, Acts 16:3. More broadly: Paul's whole argument in Galatians
opposes the doing of good works for justification. Yet, none of this argument
forbids us to do good works or denies their obligation.
(b)
Paul may well have the Jewish Sabbath (Saturday) in mind here.
(5)
Colossians 2:16-17
(a)
This passage does mention "sabbath" specifically,
and it includes such Sabbaths among the "shadows" which pass away in the New
Covenant. However, sabbath applied
not only to the weekly Sabbath, but to various feast days of the Old Covenant
calendar. The latter were clearly distinguished from the weekly Sabbath in the
Old Testament, and it is not impossible to assume that the Colossians also made
such distinctions naturally. Notice that Paul speaks of "a" Sabbath, not "the"
Sabbath.
(b)
John Mitchell made the argument that
"feast, new moon and sabbath" regularly denotes official sacrifices in
the Old Testament. (Report, Minutes of
the 40th General Assembly, OPC, pp. 99ff.). On this basis, the "shadows"
would be occasions of Old Covenant sacrifices, not the weekly Sabbath. (Cf.
Hebrews 10).
(c)
Or the passage may refer to the weekly
Sabbath; but then, the most likely reference is to the Jewish Sabbath (Saturday). This is the most common understanding
among Sabbatarians and the one I find most persuasive.
(d)
As Douma points out, the "shadows" are no
longer in effect; but there is a positive relation between the OT shadows and
continuing NT ordinances: circumcision/baptism; passover/Lord's Supper. Why not
also Sabbath/Lord's Day?
d)
Summary: The New
Testament texts on "day-keeping", therefore, do not present any evidence
clearly contradicting strong Sabbatarian views, though it would certainly help
matters if we could reach more definitive exegetical conclusions on the
meanings of these passages.
e)
Church-Historical Difficulty: It appears
that the early Christians did not take off work on the first day of the week,
or connect Sunday observance with the Fourth Commandment.
(i)
The Lord's Day is honored by early
writers, as the replacement of the Sabbath: Didache, Ignatius (Magnesians), Papias, Justin Martyr,
Dionysius of Corinth, Tertullian. Only Tertullian (200 AD) mentions laying
aside daily business on Sunday. The council of Laodicea (360) is the first to
ask Christians to work Saturday and quit work on Sunday.
(ii)
Douma suggests that the Fourth
Commandment is not often invoked here, because of the predominant tendency to
read the commandments allegorically.
(iii)
But all regarded the Lord's Day as a day
for joyfully celebrating redemption, as the OT Sabbath.
(iv)
And attending worship meant to some
extent setting normal work aside.
(v)
And to keep the day as a Lord's Day (rather than hour or other period)
naturally entailed a broader cessation from labor. In time the church came to
see this.
(vi)
Once this fact became evident, the
parallel between the Lord's Day and the fourth commandment became obvious, and
theologians came to urge the Lord's Day as a means of keeping the fourth
commandment.
E.
The Form of the Sabbath Under the New
Covenant.
The
above discussion indicates that the Sabbath continues under the New Covenant in
a form not drastically different from its Old Covenant form. However, clearly,
there are some changes, and we must also specify more concretely those modes of
Sabbath observance sanctioned by both covenants. The general meaning
of the Sabbath has been discussed under C, above. Now, we seek to translate the
Sabbath-symbolism into specific policies particularly for our own period in
redemptive history.
1.
Worship and Rest.
a)
See D.1., above, for various views.
b)
My own position is closer to the"Early
Kline view" than to the others.
(1)
Clearly, the Sabbath is worship, the consecration
of a particular day to the Lord [C.2.]. In that sense, the Westminster
Standards are correct: the whole day is a day of "worship" because the
whole day is to be consecrated to God in a special way.
(2)
However, the Confession is perhaps a bit
too quick to equate "worship" with cultic exercises, thus reaching the
conclusion that except for deeds of necessity and mercy the whole day is to be
devoted to such exercises.
(a)
Physical rest on the Sabbath (including
recreation) does have a sacramental (and, thus, worshipful) function as it
anticipates our sharing in the divine rest.
(b)
If the consecration of the day may be
fulfilled only by cultic exercises, then "deeds of necessity and mercy" are
appropriate to the day only by way of awkward exceptions.
(i)
But mercy, as we've seen, is a central
function of the Sabbath. This can be seen only if the idea of rest is made more
central than in the Confession: mercy is a giving of rest
[C.3.c.]. Thus, if rest is central, the emphasis on the Sabbath as a day of
mercy becomes intelligible.
(ii)
"Deeds of necessity" are also
appropriate, because, on our view, the Sabbath has a manward reference
as well as a Godward reference (Mark 2:27). In Scripture, "deeds of necessity"
are not merely works necessary to keep men alive so they can worship (Jesus'
disciples might have fasted on Sabbath if that was the point), but,
rather, those works necessary to maintain man's full enjoyment of the
Sabbath celebration. (Cf. Isaiah 58:13f.)
(3)
I do not deny, of course, the
appropriateness of cultic exercises on the Sabbath, only that these are exclusively
appropriate. Certainly, no other day of the week is equally suited to the
cultic "meeting" between God and his people [C.2.]. And no one may take it upon
himself to spurn the assembly (Hebrews 10:25).
(4)
Conclusion:
The balance of the evidence indicates that under the New Covenant God requires
us to consecrate the Sabbath and thereby to worship him, not only in cultic
exercises, but also in resting from our labors, delighting in that rest, and
sharing it with others in deeds of mercy.
2.
The Change of day.
a)
The problem: Apparently, the Old Covenant
people of God rested on Saturday, the seventh day of the week, by divine order.
Somehow, the New Covenant people of God have come to observe Sunday, the first
day instead. But where in Scripture is there a divine command to make this
change? And is it thinkable that such a change would be made without divine
authority?
b)
Ambiguity of "change of day": Before
discussing this matter, we must get clear on what we mean when we talk about a
"change of day". The phrase is not as perspicuous as it appears.
(1)
"Change from Saturday to Sunday": This
could mean merely a change in the name of the day on which we rest. But
certainly, that is not what is at issue here. There is no divine mandate
requiring the Sabbath to have a certain name. Names for the day rightly vary
from language to language. Whether we call the Sabbath "Saturday" or "Sunday"
is a matter of godly human initiative.
(2)
"Change from the day observed in the Old
Testament to the day following":
(a)
Since the calendar has changed so often,
in so many respects, we really do not know on what day of our week the Sabbath
was observed in the Old Testament period. Even during that period, it is doubtful
that the calendar remained entirely constant.
(b)
Even when it did remain constant, the
Sabbath may not have fallen regularly on the seventh day of the week, though it
did occur at seven-day intervals. Cf. Rushdoony, Institutes, 134ff.
(i)
The 15th of Abib, the first
month (roughly =April) must be a Sabbath, for the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
The other Sabbaths are dated from this one, in Lev. 23:6-7, 11, 15-16, 21.
(ii)
So the day of the month is constant, the
day of the week variable, like your birthday. It did not fall regularly on
Saturday.
(c)
During the New Testament era, the
calendar has also changed frequently, so we do not know precisely which day of
our week was the "first day" of the apostolic church.
(d)
Surely, it cannot be argued (especially
in the New Testament period) that there is a divinely commanded calendar. Our
inability to locate the precise day on which the biblical characters rested is
not due to sin.
(e)
There is no divinely commanded location
for the international date line. Therefore, there must be some element of human
initiative involved in determining which day of the week will be the seventh
and which will be the first, etc.
(f)
The idea, then, of determining the
precise day on which the Old Testament people worshipped and setting aside the
day following that one is an impossible notion, certainly not a matter of
divine command, and not what is meant by "change of day" in this context.
(3)
"Change in Symbolic Weight":
(a)
This, in my view, is the precise nature
of the change under discussion. It is a change in the meaning of the
day, a change in symbolism from end to beginning.
(b)
In theory, the early church might have
observed the new symbolism by continuing to worship on the seventh day, but
regarding that seventh day as the first day of a cycle and investing that
day with first-day symbolism. Such an approach, however, would have been
inadequate in their situation, because:
(i)
The change had to do with the appearances
of the risen Christ on the day following the Jewish Sabbath. For them to have
retained the old day would have obscured that fact.
(ii)
A private change of calendar for the
Christians only would have obscured their witness to the world and especially
to the Jews. That witness required observation of a day different from
that of Judaism.
(iii)
Thus, a mere symbolic change without
actual change of the time of worship would have been inexpedient in the first
century. Similarly, it would be inexpedient in most situations today. Yet,
there is nothing inherently wrong with worshipping on another day as
long as that day is seen as "first", with all the symbolic weight attached to
that "firstness".
(4)
The problem then becomes: what divine
authorization is there for this change in symbolic weight?
c)
Even during the Old Covenant, there was
some Sabbatical symbolism associated with the "first day" or "eighth day" in a
sequence.
(1)
The divine Sabbath of Genesis 2:2f. began
on the first complete day of man's existence. God's Sabbath (which he
intended to share with man) marked the beginning of man's life. Our life
is the gift of God's creation, his completed work, just as our salvation is the
gift of God's completed redemptive work. Note:
(a)
Christ is the second Adam.
(b)
Redemption is a new creation.
(2)
First-fruits and Pentecost, Leviticus
23:9-21.
(a)
Wave-offering on "morrow after the
Sabbath," v. 11.
(b)
Meal-offering on "morrow after seventh
Sabbath," v. 16.
(c)
Both days are Sabbaths, though the word
is not used (14, 21). "Holy convocation," "no servile work".
(d)
Symbolism: Christ, the first-fruits of
the dead, Pentecost as the first-fruits of the gospel.
(e)
Thus, even under the Old Covenant, God
called his people to observe occasional first-day Sabbaths and, thus, to
anticipate the coming great harvest, the accomplishment of redemption.
(3)
Blowing of trumpets, Leviticus 23:24—on
the first day of the seventh month. Trumpets tend to symbolize the
approach of the divine presence.
(4)
Feast of tabernacles, Leviticus 23:33-44.
(a)
First- and eighth-day Sabbaths, vv. 35,
39.
(b)
Symbolism: Christ tabernacling among his
people.
(5)
Jubilee, Leviticus 25:8-17.
(a)
The Jubilee is the fiftieth year in the
sequence, following the normal Sabbatical year, v. 10.
(b)
Symbolism: the final rectification, the
consummation.
(6)
The Old Testament, therefore, pictures
the coming (New Testament) history of redemption in Christ by a series of
first-day Sabbaths. One might even be led to anticipate that when these events
are fulfilled, the first day will then achieve more prominence in the
life of God's people. Possibly:
(a)
Even Israel's seventh-day Sabbath was, in
a sense, a "first day yet-to-come".
(b)
Christ brings the first day in principle.
(c)
In the consummation, God's seventh day
again becomes fully our first day, as at creation.
d)
The first day in the New Covenant.
(1)
The essence of the Sabbath is the
"meeting with God" (C.2.). But in Christ is the definitive meeting point of man
with God. He is the Sabbath.
(a)
He calls the disciples, in effect, to
drop all their own work to follow him. Peter and the others, of course, did
return to fishing from time to time during Jesus' earthly ministry, but notice
how often he interrupts their fishing to draw their attention to himself.
(b)
Did Mary, as opposed to Martha, recognize
the presence of the Sabbath in Jesus (Luke 10:38-42)? Contrary to the normal
pattern of guest / host relations, she saw her role to be one of rest, worship
and enjoyment in the presence of Jesus.
(2)
First-day resurrection and resurrection
appearances, Luke 24:13-51 (36-47, maybe 48-52); John 20:1, 19, 26.
(3)
First-day gatherings of the apostolic
church: This is the only day concerning which there is apostolic example: Acts 2:1,
20:6f.; I Corinthians 16:1f.
(4)
In the post-apostolic period, the
first-day gatherings were taken for granted; they were non-controversial. That
presupposes apostolic warrant.
(5)
Conclusion:
(a)
Apostolic practice justifies the use of
the first day as the Christian day of worship.
(b)
In all probability, the significance of
the day is that it is a memorial to the day of resurrection. This fact, in
turn, embraces all of the rich Old Testament symbolism concerning the first
day.
e)
Is Sunday the New Testament Sabbath?
(1)
Douma:
(a)
Both Sabbath and Sunday are special days,
commemorative.
(b)
Both are feasts.
(c)
Both are days of worship.
(d)
Both are "made for man."
(e)
Both are violated by selfish labor and by
Pharisaic casuistry.
(2)
Calvin: since Sabbath symbolizes resting
from works righteousness, we should celebrate it every day.
(a)
But God rested only one day.
(b)
He appointed Israel to observe one day,
though in the OT also the Sabbath symbolized God's deliverance.
(c)
The chief symbolism of the Sabbath is not
rest from legalist works, but rest from the toil that sin brings into the
world. We are not told to spend six days in legalistic works and rest on the
seventh.
(3)
Days of worship, "holy convocation," were
Sabbaths in the Old Testament. The day of worship and the day of rest are never
separated. Previous discussion shows the theological necessity of this.
(4)
Since there is clearly a change in
symbolic weight, from a predominantly seventh-day symbolism to a predominantly
first-day symbolism, under the New Covenant, and, since that symbolic weight
has been attached to the Sabbath [i., above], the day has, therefore, been
changed.
(5)
But do we still keep the letter of the
fourth commandment, which specifies a sequence of six days of work and a rest
on the seventh?
(a)
The New Testament Sabbath is, like the
Old, a day of rest between one six-day period and another. What do we rest from?
As in the Old Covenant, we rest from the preceding six days of work.
(b)
The Sabbath in either covenant, then, is
both backward looking and forward looking. It is a memorial to God's acts in
the past and a consecration of our own past labors, but also an anticipation of
the history of redemption to come.
(c)
The difference lies, not in any drastic
change, not even a drastic change of symbolism, but in a change of symbolic weight.
The New Testament Sabbath carries the same symbolism of the Old Testament
Sabbath, but refocuses it to account for its distinctive historical position:
it changes the Old Testament symbolism by stressing the new beginning made by
the finished accomplishment of redemption.
(d)
Thus, we still rest on the seventh day,
as the fourth commandment says—the seventh day from the beginning of the
work-week. But that seventh day is our first day in Christ.
3.
Sabbath as a New Covenant Sign.
a)
In all ages, the Sabbath is a
distinguishing mark of God's people [C.3.b.; E.1.b.iv.d)]. Yet, it is given to
the whole human race in creation and probably also in the earliest redemptive
covenants (see earlier discussion of Kline).
(1)
Since it "distinguishes" the whole race
as God's covenant people, there is a sense in which it does not distinguish at
all. All are given the Sabbath as a sign of promise.
(2)
Though all have the obligation to keep
the Sabbath, few do; that is one aspect of the covenant-breaking that
characterizes the human race.
(3)
Thus, Israel is called to be a nation of
Sabbath-keepers. The language in Exodus 31:12ff. does not suggest that
the Sabbath is something unknown to other nations or distinctive to Israel,
but, rather, that Israel is to be unique as a Keeper of the Sabbath. In
Exodus 20:8, Israel is told to remember the Sabbath. Again, the
impression is that Israel is to observe a law that has been previously
known but not observed.
b)
Thus, the sign- or sacramental-character
of the Sabbath does not distinguish the church in the sense that those outside
the church are forbidden to observe it. It is not parallel to baptism and the
Lord's Supper in this respect. Note again the obligation of "strangers" (Exodus
20:10) whether circumcised or not (Exodus 12:48).
c)
Blue laws.
(1)
There is, therefore, nothing
theologically wrong with urging unbelievers to keep the Sabbath, just as we
urge them not to kill or steal.
(2)
Since we are called, as Sabbatarians, not
only to rest, but also to give rest, it is proper for us to seek in
society a slackening of the pace so that the populace as a whole may rest one
day in seven, and also (incidentally!) to reduce the economic pressure on
Christians to break the Sabbath in order to compete. The Sabbath was made for
man (Mark 2:27)—a creation ordinance written into our being. We need to
rest one day in seven. To promote this is to promote health in the fullest
sense, not just to promote a feature of a particular redemptive covenant.
(3)
For the role of government, see
discussion of the fifth commandment. Generally, I see no objection to the use
of the powers of government to enforce Sabbath-observance, though this may not
be desirable in every situation. Even if one denies to government the right to
enforce religion, one certainly must acknowledge the right of government to protest
religion and to promote rest in society [above, ii.].
4.
Sabbath Years and Jubilee
a)
These have to do with the rest of the
land.
b)
So I take it that these were given to
Israel as a theocracy, not to the Gentile nations who have no divine land
grant.
c)
Though not mandatory, they express
important principles (see below).
5.
Broader Implications.
a)
Ecology.
(1)
In the sabbatical years, and in the
Jubilee, the land was to rest, just as on the weekly Sabbath, man was to
give rest to his family, servants and animals. This completes the reference to
those under man's dominion. Exodus 23:10f.; Leviticus 25:1-17.
(2)
Thus, the cultural mandate is not
intended as an exploitation of creation, but a "guarding and keeping", (Genesis
2:15).
(3)
Scripture warns us, therefore, against
coveting prosperity in such a way that we destroy the God-given source of our
wealth. God's people not only take from the earth, but also give back.
b)
Care for the poor.
(1)
In the sabbatical years, debts were
remitted and Hebrew slaves set free, unless they voluntarily agreed to accept
lifetime servitude, Deuteronomy 15:1-6, 12-18.
(2)
One reason for the rest of the land was
so that "the poor of thy people may eat" (Exodus 23:11).
(3)
Again, then, we are being warned against
precisely the acquisitive spirit so common in modern America. The Sabbath, in
all its forms, means that we will not put our own wealth ahead of the needs of
others. [Cf. C.3.c.].
(4)
Hence, the condemnation of Amos against
the Sabbatarians of his day, 8:4-10. They kept the Sabbath, so far as the
letter of the law was concerned, but they eagerly awaited the end of the
Sabbath so that they could resume their oppression of the poor. Thus, they had
not begun to appreciate the meaning of the Sabbath ordinance. The Sabbath
commandment requires a Sabbatarian attitude of heart—a willingness to serve.
V.
The Fifth Commandment:
"Honor thy father and thy mother (Deuteronomy: as the Lord thy God hath
commanded thee), that thy days may be long (Deuteronomy: and that it might go
well with thee) in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee."
WLC, Q124: Who are meant by father and mother in the
fifth commandment?
A124: By father and mother, in the fifth
commandment, are meant, not only natural parents, but all superiors in age and
gifts; and especially such as, by God's ordinance, are over us in place of
authority, whether in family, church, or commonwealth.
Q125: Why are superiors styled Father and Mother?
A125:
Superiors are styled Father and Mother, both to teach them in all duties
toward their inferiors, like natural parents, to express love and tenderness to
them, according to their several relations; and to work inferiors to a greater
willingness and cheerfulness in performing their duties to their superiors, as
to their parents.
Q126: What is the general scope of the fifth
commandment?
A126:
The general scope of the fifth commandment is, the performance of those
duties which we mutually owe in our several relations, as inferiors, superiors,
or equals.
Q127: What is the honor that inferiors owe to their
superiors.?
A127:
The honor which inferiors owe to their superiors is, all due reverence
in heart, word, and behavior; prayer and thanksgiving for them; imitation of
their virtues and graces; willing obedience to their lawful commands and
counsels; due submission to their corrections; fidelity to, defense and
maintenance of their persons and authority, according to their several ranks,
and the nature of their places; bearing with their infirmities, and covering
them in love, that so they may be an honor to them and to their government.
Q128: What are the sins of inferiors against their
superiors?
A128:
The sins of inferiors against their superiors are, all neglect of the
duties required toward them; envying at, contempt of, and rebellion against,
their persons and places, in their lawful counsels, commands, and corrections;
cursing, mocking, and all such refractory and scandalous carriage, as proves a
shame and dishonor to them and their government.
Q129: What is required of superiors towards their
inferiors?
A129:
It is required of superiors, according to that power they receive from
God, and that relation wherein they stand, to love, pray for, and bless their
inferiors; to instruct, counsel, and admonish them; countenancing, commending,
and rewarding such as do well; and discountenancing, reproving, and chastising
such as do ill; protecting, and providing for them all things necessary for
soul and body: and by grave, wise, holy, and exemplary carriage, to procure
glory to God, honor to themselves, and so to preserve that authority which God
hath put upon them.
Q130: What are the sins of superiors?
A130:
The sins of superiors are, besides the neglect of the duties required of
them, an inordinate seeking of themselves, their own glory, ease, profit, or
pleasure; commanding things unlawful, or not in the power of inferiors to
perform; counseling, encouraging, or favoring them in that which is evil;
dissuading, discouraging, or discountenancing them in that which is good;
correcting them unduly; careless exposing, or leaving them to wrong,
temptation, and danger; provoking them to wrath; or any way dishonoring
themselves, or lessening their authority, by an unjust, indiscreet, rigorous,
or remiss behavior.
Q131: What are the duties of equals?
A131:
The duties of equals are, to regard the dignity and worth of each other,
in giving honor to go one before another; and to rejoice in each other's gifts
and advancement, as their own.
Q132: What are the sins of equals?
A132:
The sins of equals are, besides the neglect of the duties required, the
undervaluing of the worth, envying the gifts, grieving at the advancement of
prosperity one of another; and usurping preeminence one over another.
Q133: What is the reason annexed to the fifth
commandment, the more to enforce it?
A133:
The reason annexed to the fifth commandment, in these words, That thy
days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, is an
express promise of long life and prosperity, as far as it shall serve for God's
glory and their own good, to all such as keep this commandment.
A.
Place in the Decalogue
1.
Transition from duty to God, to our duty
to man.
a)
Note Kline's reservations: no division
between two tables.
b)
But a striking transition nonetheless:
(1)
Worship, reverence to God in I‑IV
(2)
Parallel (!) reverence to human beings in
V. (How reconcile??)
2.
The second creation ordinance
a)
Worship and Sabbath, I‑IV
b)
Family, V‑VII (Can murder be
construed as a family crime? Note Gen. 4:1‑15, restriction of vengeance
in family context. No corresponding restriction outside that context, Romans
13:4. In some ways the human race is a family; in other ways not.)
c)
Labor VIII‑X
(Can
"false witness" be construed as a crime against property, an attempt to
gain economic advantage through legal authority?)
B.
General Thrust
1.
Honor, Kabad: Calvin' distinctions still
helpful.
a)
Reverence, respect (Existential
perspective)
(1)
"Fear" used in parallel texts: Leviticus
19:3, Romans 13:7, I Peter 2:18
(2)
Parallels language used concerning our
worship of God.
(a)
Sometimes Scripture contrasts the
honor due to God with that due to any human being, Acts 4:19, 5:29, even father
and mother! Matthew 10:35‑37, Mark 10:29f, Luke 14:26f. (Strong testimony
to the deity of Christ.) First commandment!
(b)
But in the fifth commandment, reverence
to father and mother is a consequence of our reverence to God.
(i)
Deut. "as the Lord thy God commanded
thee"
(ii)
Leviticus 19:32, Ephesians 6:1ff,
Colossians 3:20ff
(iii)
Matthew 15:4‑6, Mark 7:10ff, Corban
(a)
Pledge of money to temple, or legal
notice disclaiming responsibility for parents' debts?
(b)
In either case, an attempt to divest self
of obligation, by religious, legal oath. Cf. Exodus 21:17.
(c)
Jesus condemns this competition
between loyalty to God and to parents. It actually dishonors by making
his word void.
(c)
Need for balanced perception
(i)
Roman Catholic reverence of men: latreia, douleia, uperdouleia, clergy titles
(ii)
Protestants + exaggerated reverence for
theologians, pastors, traditions.
(iii)
Existential perspective: need to "see
as."
(d)
Importance of deference, Gen. 31:35, 1
Kings 2:19, 1 Tim. 5:1.
(e)
Seriousness of cursing, Ex. 21:17, Lev.
20:9, Prov. 20:20, 30:11.
b)
Submission (Normative perspective)
(1)
General: reverence or respect entails hearing
with respect, expecting to learn, being willing to change, not assuming too
quickly that we know more than the one we listen to.
(a)
I Timothy 5:1 ‑ not blind
obedience: we can exhort. But age is a factor in determining how we exhort.
(b)
I Peter 5:5. In both of these‑passages,
"elder" may mean simply "older man," not necessarily a church officer.
(c)
Proverbs: the elderly are assumed to be
wise, worth hearing. When they are not, they are pathetic cases.
(d)
Note the negative example of Rehoboam, 1
Kings 12.
(e)
Scripture presents parents (and the
elderly generally) as teachers: Deut.
6:6-7, Prov. 1:10, 2:1, 3:1. Accepting the wisdom of parents-teachers leads to
long life (Prov. 3:1-2, 4:10). The concept of parents as wisdom teachers is the
logical link between honoring parents and the promise of long life and
prosperity (Douma).
(2)
Obedience: This is a particular form
of submission, not submission itself. Sometimes submission entails obedience,
sometimes not.
(a)
Children and parents: for a child,
submission to parents involves obedience, Ephesians 6:1, Colossians 3:20. But
when the child comes of age, little is said about obedience. "Honor" then takes
primarily the form of respect (a) and financial support (c).
(b)
Civil authorities, Titus 3:1, I Peter
2:13f.
(c)
Church authorities, Hebrews 13:17, Phil.
2:12, II Thes. 3:14.
(d)
Wives, I Peter 3:6
(e)
Servants, Colossians 3:20, I Peter 2:18ff
(even to the cruel!)
(f)
Limit on obedience: we must
disobey human authorities when they command us to disobey God. When we sin
against God, we may not offer as an excuse that we were commanded to do so by
lawful authority. Ex. 1:17, 19‑21, I Samuel 22:17ff, I Kings 12:28‑30,
2 Chron. 26:16-21, Daniel 6:22f, Matt. 10:37, Luke 3:13f, 14:26, Acts 4:18‑20,
5:29.
(i)
Hezekiah followed his ancestor David,
rather than his father Ahaz, 2 Kings 18:3.
(ii)
Jesus was not uncritical of his parents
(Luke 2:49), but was subject to them (2:51).
c)
Financial support (Situational
perspective)
(1)
Financial connotation of kabad, Proverbs 13:9, Gen. 13:2, Isaiah
43:23, Malachi 1:6, 3:8; time, I Timothy 5:17.
(2)
NT Obligation: I Timothy 5:4ff (note
especially verse 8), Mark 7:10ff.
2.
Father and Mother: The Larger Catechism
sees the Fifth Commandment as covering all interpersonal relations: between
superiors, inferiors, equals. Can this rather broad understanding of "father
and mother" be justified?
a)
Structure of family metaphors in Scripture
(1)
Elders, rulers, military chiefs: Ex.
12:21, Duet. 5:23, II Kings 5:13, Gen. 45:8, Isaiah 49:23, Judges 5:7
(2)
Prophets, wisdom teachers, church
leaders: Ps. 34:11f, Proverbs 1:8, 10, 15, II Kings 2:12, 13.14,
I Cor. 4:15, Gal. 4:19, I Thes. 5.12f ("esteem"), 1 Tim. 1:2, Tit.
1:4.
(3)
Older people: I Timothy 5:1
(4)
God: Malachi 1:6, Matt. 6:9, Ephesians
3:15
b)
Family is the fundamental sphere from
which all other spheres are derived; therefore, family "honor" is the tie that
binds all society.
(1)
Historically
(a)
Adam played all roles: prophet, priest,
king
(b)
Noah: human race born anew in a single
family
(c)
Israel: its institutions are elaborations
of its original family structure
(d)
New Covenant: a new family, Matthew
12:48ff, Mark 10:29f, Ephesians 1:5, Romans 14: 10ff
(2)
Developmentally: For young children, the
family still performs all the functions of society: teaching, discipline,
employment, religious leadership.
(3)
Logically: ""rule"" in all
spheres is similar, I Timothy 3:4, David as shepherd and king.
c)
Similar "honor" required in all authority
spheres: reverence, submission, support, promise of prosperity, "unto the
Lord." Proverbs 3:1‑2, Ephesians 5:22ff (note verse 22, 6:5, 7, 9),
Colossians 3:23ff, I Peter 2:17 [cf. Exodus 22:28, Proverbs 24:21, Psalm.
82:6].
d)
Universality of "honor" in Scripture
(1)
Honor attaches to all persons
(a)
Romans 13:7 ‑ probably an allusion
to fifth commandment; note reference to other commandments in verse 9.
(b)
I Peter 2:13, 17.
(2)
Mutual submission in the church
(a)
Romans 12:10 ‑ in honor preferring
one another
(b)
Ephesians 5:21ff ‑ note reciprocal
responsibilities.
(c)
I Peter lff ‑ note "honor" due
the wife in verse 7, promise of prosperity in verse 9.
(d)
I Corinthians 7:2‑4 ‑
surprising mutual "ownership"
(e)
I Corinthians 11:11 ‑ lest
readers draw wrong inferences from female submission
(3)
Pattern of office in the new covenant,
John 13:12‑17, Matthew 20:20‑28, I Peter 3. Unusual: instead
of the "inferior" being preoccupied with the needs of the superior, vice versa. There ought to be an
atmosphere of love in the church entirely different from that found in any
secular institution.
(4)
Still, there is a real authority
structure. Christ is over the church, parents have authority over
children, husbands over wives. (Ephesians 5:21 does not make husband and
wife equal authorities.)
(5)
Vs. egalitarianism, authoritarianism.
(a)
God places all of us under authority. In
itself, this is not demeaning or oppressive, contra feminism.
(b)
God has not made us all equal in gifts
and abilities.
(c)
But no human ruler should claim divine
power over all aspects of human life.
(d)
And rulers should rule for the good of
their subjects.
3.
Promise of Prosperity
a)
For obedience to God, but also for
obedience to his representatives, Colossians 3:25, I Timothy 5:8, I Peter
2:18, 3:8-12.
b)
Functions in new covenant as well as old:
Mark 10:30, Colossians 3:24, Ephesians 6:1, I Peter 3:10 (quotes Psalm
34:12, which alludes to fifth commandment). "Land" is the whole earth now.
c)
Does distinguish the righteous from the
wicked, I Kings 3:14, Malachi 4:6.
d)
Not automatic, however. Some faithful
people die young. That can be a blessing, 1 Kings 14:13, 2 Kings 22:20. But the
ultimate fulfillment of this promise is in the life to come.
e)
Still, there is blessing in this life for
honoring God and his representatives, Mark 10:29-31, 1 Tim. 4:8.
f)
Why is this promise attached specifically
to the fifth commandment?
(1)
Similar sanctions attached to worship,
honor of God, obeying him: second commandment, Deuteronomy 6:3, 18 (note
parallel language).
(2)
Point of fifth commandment: attaches same
sanctions to God's representatives.
(3)
Extends to sources of life generally:
12:25, 28 (blood not to be eaten); 22:6f (don't take mother bird and eggs).
Ecological implications.
(4)
Parents as wisdom teachers: following
their wisdom brings long life (Prov. 3:1-2, 4:10, Psm. 1). Compare the function
of God's law "for your good" (Deut. 6:24, 10:13, 12:28).
B.
Sphere-relations: Historical Survey
1.
Sophists
a)
Ethical irrationalism: moral norms
neither true nor false.
b)
Ethical rationalism: man is the measure
of all things.
c)
Irrationalism leads to anarchy in
society.
d)
Rationalism leads to totalitarianism
("Justice is the interest of the stronger.")
2.
Plato
a)
Rationalism: philosopher knows the forms,
so he ought to rule.
b)
Hence, totalitarianism
(1)
No private property
(2)
Communal wives, children for upper
classes
(3)
Eugenic supervision of marriages, births
(4)
Compulsory education
(5)
Censorship of art, literature
c)
Tyranny? But it is supposed to bring
fulfillment to each individual.
3.
Aristotle: State is more important than
the individual, since the whole is more important than any part. It is the
partnership that includes all partnerships.
4.
Stoics: similar reasoning, leading to
conclusion of world government.
5.
Aquinas
a)
Doctrine of the state can be established
by natural (Aristotelian) reason.
(1)
State is highest social whole of which
all are parts.
(2)
"Subsidiarily:" Let the parts do what
they can.
b)
If man hadn't fallen, the state would be
enough; but because of sin, we need the church also.
c)
The two are distinct, each autonomous in
its own realm (nature/grace).
d)
Since grace is the higher sphere, the
church is superior to the state. It is the extension of the incarnation itself.
(1)
It prevails where conflict.
(2)
It instructs the state concerning natural
law (since the fall, it has a superior understanding of nature).
(3)
The state may enter the sphere of grace
insofar as it helps the church.
(4)
Boniface VIII: earthly power is delegated
to the pope. He may remove a heretical ruler.
(5)
Bellarmine ‑ more moderate
(a)
Church and state are like soul and body.
(b)
Church's principal responsibility in
state is to enlighten rulers, people on the extent and limits of their
obligations.
(c)
The church has a right to intervene in
temporal matters which affect the spiritual realm.
6.
Maritain (modern, pre‑1967 Roman
Catholic)
a)
State is supreme embodiment of natural
reason.
b)
Its work: promote the common welfare,
maintain law, administer public affairs.
c)
Church is superior because man is
spiritual.
(1)
That supremacy, however, must be applied
"analogously" ‑ differently in different situations.
(2)
In democracy, authoritarianism
inappropriate. A more spiritual approach better befits the church's nature:
moral enlightenment.
(3)
Don't compromise with moral law, but
don't enforce rules too heavy for the common good.
d)
State may help church
(1)
By creating conditions of order
(2)
By acknowledging God
(3)
Specific help (no more than it would give
to any other group)
7.
Vatican II ‑ now room for all sorts
of views in Roman church.
8.
Machiavelli (1469‑1527)
a)
Christianity makes men passive,
discourages political involvement; thus power of the church must be sharply
curbed.
b)
Law alone makes men virtuous, hunger
alone makes him industrious.
c)
Until population is purified, the state
requires as absolute despot to maintain strength.
d)
That despot may do anything (lie, trick,
force) to achieve his ends. He is above the sphere of individual morality.
9.
Bodin, Hobbes, Rousseau: "Social
contract." Once the people have transferred their authority to the state, the
state becomes absolute in authority, irrevocably in power.
10.
Locke: Social contract modified in
direction of Rutherford.
11.
Anabaptism (Yoder, The Politics of Jesus)
a)
Sword‑bearing of state is radically
incompatible with Jesus' teaching concerning non‑resistance.
(1)
Rev. 13: state is satanic.
(2)
Romans 13
(a)
State is one of the tribulations the
church must endure until the last day (verses 11‑14).
(b)
Church must relate to state in attitude
of suffering love (Chap. 12, 13:8‑10), meek submission.
(c)
"Be subject" ‑ not obedience, but
subordination. Christians may often have to disobey, but must accept the
penalty.
(d)
"Ordained by God" ‑ ordered by God;
so no divine approval involved.
(e)
"Good (4) and "evil" are not obedience or
disobedience to the state, but living according to the standards of Rom. 12.
(f)
"Minister of God" ‑ the Christian,
not the civil magistrate.
(g)
Use of force is evil. True power only in
suffering.
(h)
Conclusion: state is an evil which God
uses for his purpose.
b)
So Christians ought not to participate in
the state at all.
c)
Reply:
(1)
Does no justice O.T.
(2)
Hard to eliminate element of divine sanction
from Romans 13.
(3)
Hypotasso
does regularly mean to obey out of obligation, not just to submit to superior
force. See Luke 2:51, 10:17, 20, Rom. 8:7, 1 Cor. 14:34, 37, 16:16, Eph. 5:24,
Col. 3:18, 1 Pet. 2:13, 18, 3:1, 5, 5:5, Tit. 2:9, 3:1, Jas. 4:7, Heb. 12:9.
(4)
Anabaptist reading of "good," "evil," and
"minister of God" not plausible.
(5)
Is power as force always evil? 1 Tim.
6:15, Rev. 5:5, 12, 12:5, 21:24.
(6)
Anabaptists accept authority of parents,
husbands, teachers. Why not of state?
12.
Lutheranism: "the doctrine of the two
kingdoms"
a)
God approves of state, but it is less
than God's best.
b)
It is an emergency measure to preserve
life, order, family after fall.
c)
Uses forces unleashed by the fall, but in
interest of love.
d)
"God's left hand." Contradiction in God's
nature? (Thielicke)
e)
Powers of state, then, must be limited.
f)
Kingdom of God: based on entirely
different principles. Rule only through word, spirit.
g)
Prince can be Christian, but in different
order.
h)
Cf. law/gospel distinction: threat may
never be a means to a godly end.
i)
Church and state
(1)
State not arm of church, but ought to be
Christian.
(2)
Ought to protect church, help organize
it.
(3)
Cannot intervene in purely religious
issues.
(4)
Erastianism: church under state control.
13.
Calvin
a)
State is a gracious provision of God.
(vs. RC, Anabaptist, Lutheran)
b)
Scripture determines the state's
prerogatives.
c)
Church and state: difference is
competence, jurisdiction.
d)
Limits of state's jurisdiction: somewhat
unclear.
e)
Ground of revolution? Generally no, but:
(1)
Sermon on Daniel 6:22 ‑ When rulers
rise against God, people should put them down.
(2)
Last page of Institutes: lesser magistrates must not simply agree to unjust
policies.
14.
S. Rutherford (Lex, Rex, 1644)
a)
Government is from God, but ratifies by
people (Saul, David).
b)
King is subject to God's law.
c)
In accepting a ruler, the community does
not surrender all its rights (as Rousseau thought), but only the right to do
violence. They maintain the right of self‑defense.
d)
If the king breaks the contract, the
people are free from their obligations.
e)
Romans 13 includes "inferior
magistrates."
(1)
So the king is not the sole interpreter
of the law.
(2)
Separation of powers is desirable.
(3)
Inferior judges also have power of sword.
15.
A. Kuyper (Lectures on Calvinism. 1898)
a)
Authority of the state is from God,
subject to the word.
b)
Its responsibilities: Compel mutual
respect, defend the weak, collect taxes or national purposes
c)
Other spheres also sovereign ‑
their rights from God, not state.
d)
Thus state must respect their rights ‑
basis of freedom. May not interfere in their "internal workings"
e)
State is "unnatural" institution. (vs.
Van Ruler)
(1)
Post‑fall
(2)
Vs. man's natural impulses ‑
replaces organic with mechanical motivation.
(3)
But necessary in fallen world.
f)
State under God's law, but not theocracy
(Urim)
(1)
Must protect church
(2)
Cannot extirpate idolatry, since state
not competent to decide which church is right.
(3)
Ought to penalize blasphemy, not because
of its impiety, but because God rules over the state.
g)
Comments
(1)
Not specific enough in reference to Scriptural
law.
(2)
Limits on state not precise.
(3)
Reformed resistance, though, to
anarch/totalitarian dialectic.
16.
Dooyeweerd
a)
More elaborate account of family, church,
state as belonging to distinct spheres, freedom grounded in this diversity
under God.
b)
Problems: grounding for distinctions,
precision on powers, limits of state power.
c)
His disciples, therefore, differ greatly
in their view of the power of the state: cf. the conservative Van Riessen, the
socialistic Bob Goudswaard. No "limit in principle" to governmental
interference, because no clearly exegetical approach.
17.
Theonomy (see general discussion of
normative perspective)
a)
Scripture sets limits on state powers.
b)
O.T.: church/state distinguished by
priesthood/kingship.
c)
Emulate OT laws (with cultural and redemptive‑historical
adjustments).
18.
Clowney ("The Politics of the
Kingdom")
a)
Kingdom of God: the coming of God himself
in Christ.
b)
Kingdom power ‑ radically different
from earthly power.
c)
Christ fulfills creation mandate, Matthew
28, Ephesians 4:10, dominion promises to Israel.
d)
Our work: not to seek dominion, but to
endure the sufferings of Christ in bringing the gospel to the world. The glory
comes later.
e)
The church is the new theo-political form
of the kingdom, but radically different from the O.T. theocracy. No sword.
(1)
It is the form of the heavenly city,
while the state is the form of the earthly city.
(2)
Sword is for Christians, non‑Christians
alike (Genesis 9); cf. Kline.
f)
Applications
(1)
Don't link Christianity to political
hopes.
(2)
Cultural mandate no longer in force.
(3)
God does not promise us skill in world
politics, etc.
(4)
Don't amass wealth, but give to the
needy.
g)
Comments
(1)
Brings out more clearly than the
Kuyperians the distinctive nature of the church.
(2)
Cultural mandate and great commission:
see previous discussion.
(3)
Secularity of the state.
(a)
Scripture does teach that the civil
magistrate does not lose his authority because of unbelief.
(b)
But why should we not strive to increase
Christian influence in the state? Unbelieving magistrates may have lawful
authority, but they are hardly ideal.
(4)
God does give worldly wisdom to
Christians: Proverbs
(5)
Christians are promised prosperity; and
prosperity is necessary if we are to help the needy in meaningful way.
19.
Frame, "Toward a Theology of the State."
20.
Some conclusions (tentative)
a)
Scripture must govern our thinking in
this area in detail as well as general drift.
b)
The church is the fundamental form of the
kingdom of God. As such it performs for God's people many functions otherwise
performed by the state.
c)
Authority of the state is limited:
(1)
By God's commission which is limited.
(2)
By other institutions, especially church.
(3)
By Scriptural norms.
d)
Insofar as state is obedient to
Scripture, it may be and ought to be Christian.
e)
Cautious imitation of Old Covenant Israel
is desirable for avoiding subjectivism, maintaining liberty.
f)
Should churches be politically active?
(i)
The church should proclaim the whole
counsel of God, which often bears upon questions of political debate: freedom
of religion, abortion, care for the poor, race, gender roles, homosexuality,
political corruption, and many others.
(ii)
This proclamation should not be limited
to church services. It is appropriate for Christians to write letters to
representatives, write to public media, picket, demonstrate, etc. to make their
desires known.
(iii)
Any genuine application of the Word is
legitimate in preaching and teaching. In some situations, it might even seem
necessary to oppose or endorse a particular candidate (Hitler as limiting
concept!), though a church could forfeit its tax exemption if it makes a
partisan endorsement.
(iv)
But on many issues, political decisions
require expertise not generally found among preachers:
(A) Federal
budget allocations, military hardware, effects of government on the economy,
etc. More humility is required on such matters.
(B) Making
decisions on issues that are not black and white.
(C) Deciding
what weight to put on each issue when making a political decision.
(v)
Often, churches can provide better
services than government to alleviate social problems: Christian schools,
working with the homeless, etc.
(vi)
Churches need to be alert to attacks on
their liberty to proclaim Christ: anti-church zoning policies, restrictions on
religious speech, draconian restrictions against anti-abortion demonstrations,
etc.
C.
Civil Disobedience, Revolution
1.
Generally, Scripture is anti‑revolutionary.
a)
Suffering obedience, even to froward,
cruel rulers: Romans 13, I Peter 2, Revelation 13, Matthew 22:15‑22.
(taxes were 40%)
b)
Emigration is a possibility if matters
are intolerable.
2.
Nevertheless, we must refuse any command
contrary to God's will [I, B, 1, b, ii].
3.
Obedience to law is fundamentally obedience to
the whole system.
a)
We may break a lower law if we believe
that a higher law transcends it. (Often we must, to obtain justice.)
b)
Calvin: Lower magistrates must resist
tyranny from the higher, for the higher magistrate is accountable to the law.
c)
Sometimes, therefore, a ruler must be
replaced.
(i)
Best if peaceful.
(ii)
In an extreme situation, perhaps violence
is justified. Police and military power should be used not only to quell
lawlessness among the subjects, but also among the rulers.
(iii)
Vs. anarchy, however. The leadership must
either be part of the governing body already, or must represent a viable
alternative regime. The American Revolution?
4.
A government may cease to be a
government. (Hard to judge)
a)
Losing all standards of justice, becoming
like a crime organization (contra
Romans13)
b)
Becoming too weak to maintain order.
c)
Breaking contracts with the people.
5.
If power is being contested, the
Christian is under no obligation to support the previous status quo. Make the
decision using biblical criteria of justice.
6.
An alternative government must be
available. Anarchy is not an acceptable result The Christian is under authority
(Romans13).
D.
Punishment
1.
Theories
a)
Deterrence (of offender or of others in
society): Proverbs 22:15, Deuteronomy 13:11, Cleansings, offerings.
b)
Reformation (Proverbs, I Corinthians 5:5)
c)
Restitution (most prominent in biblical
theft‑law)
d)
Restraint (quarantine, exile, capital
punishment)
e)
Taxation (not in Scripture ‑ a non‑moral
motive)
f)
Retribution (talion; basic to all punishment)
2.
Problems today
a)
Deterrence and reformation have contrary
applications.
b)
Little restitution in modern civil law.
c)
Resistance to retribution (but what basis
do we have for punishing anyone, or "curing" anyone, if that treatment is not
deserved?
3.
Forms of civil punishment
a)
Imprisonment
(1)
In Scripture, prison used only to hold
people for trial. No prison terms as penalties.
(2)
Prison terms as‑punishments are a
modern idea designed for humanitarian and reformatory purposes.
(3)
Prison systems are dismal failures on
both counts.
(4)
Biblical alternative:
(a)
Double restitution for theft (strict
justice: the criminal loses precisely what he would have gained).
(b)
Incorrigible criminals: execution.
(i)
Contempt for society ("High hand")
(ii)
Vs. development of criminal class.
b)
Restitution (above)
(1)
Strict justice
(2)
Benefit to victim
c)
Slavery ("household apprenticeship")
(1)
Various forms: enslavement through war,
voluntary slavery. We will consider the enslavement of believers for debt or
theft.
(2)
Live with family, learn a trade, learn
responsible habits.
(3)
Beating allowed, since lack of
motivation.
(4)
Set free in 7th year.
(5)
Gifts for celebration, establish in
trade, Deuteronomy 15:14, 18.
(6)
Model of "second childhood"
(7)
Slavery in American South
(a)
Based on kidnapping, a capital crime in
Scripture.
(b)
Based on racism
(c)
Believing slaves were not set free after
six years, nor were they trained for post-slavery responsibilities.
d)
Capital Punishment: objections
(1)
Sixth commandment
(a)
But Sixth commandment is opposed to unlawful
killing (ratzach). Lawfulness is
relative to Scripture.
(b)
Background of Sixth commandment is
Genesis 9:6 which provides precisely for the shedding of blood by the state.
(c)
The law as a whole provides for capital
punishment.
(2)
"N.T. prohibits revenge."
(a)
O.T. also teaches love of enemies, limits
personal vengeance, yet sees no conflict with capital punishment.
(b)
Note contrast between Romans 12 and 13.
(3)
"Capital punishment doesn't deter."
(a)
Deterrence is not the final issue.
(b)
Statistics on swift execution
policy not available. Swiftness and certainty are crucial to deterrence.
(c)
Clearly the one executed is sufficiently
deterred and that is a gain for society.
E.
Women's Roles
(Foh, Hurley)
1.
In the home
a.
Subjection to her husband (Eph. 5:22,
Col. 3:18, Tit. 2:5, "headship" = authority).
b.
Joint authority with him (Ex. 20:12, Lev.
19:3, Prov. 23:22).
c.
Mutual "ownership" (1 Cor. 7:2-4).
2.
In the church
a.
I Corinthians 14 context of judging the prophets.
b.
I Timothy 2: office of elder in view,
not general teaching.
c.
General principle: a woman can do
anything in the church that an unordained man can do.
d.
Diaconate? Yes, because it is a serving
office (Phoebe).
e.
Older women as the primary teachers of
younger women (Tit. 2:4).
f.
Women teaching men and women in
non-official capacity, Acts 18:26.
3.
In society
a.
Does Titus 2:5 require women to be
homemakers?
i.
The verse seems to presuppose that most
women were homemakers, that being their usual cultural occupation.
ii.
But anyone charged with home responsibilities
should be busy with them, as they should be "self-controlled" and "pure."
iii.
Prov. 31 implies a wider social role for
women, though still centered in the home.
iv.
The calling of Deborah, Ruth, the NT
prophetesses, the NT order of widows, and others indicate that God sometimes
calls women to work outside the home, or without a home-centered focus.
v.
It depends on age, gifts, marital status,
etc.
vi.
Women seem to be uniquely equipped to be
the primary nurturers of young children. See my paper on "The Biblical Doctrine
of the Family."
b.
Should female equality be mandated in
society?
(i)
Although I think women may legitimately
work outside the home under some conditions, I certainly do not think that all
occupations should contain equal populations of male and female workers. There
are good reasons why there are and should be fewer women than men in many
professions.
(ii)
Equal pay for equal work? A proper policy
must, of course, take into account the fact that women tend to attain less
seniority than men, tend more often to work part-time, etc. Better: equal pay
for equal value.
(iii)
These issues require consideration of
individual cases and are best resolved in the marketplace rather than in
government.
VII.
The Sixth Commandment:
"Thou shalt not kill."
Q135: What are the duties required in the sixth
commandment?
A135: The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any; by just defense thereof against violence, patient bearing of the hand of God, quietness of mind, cheerfulness of spirit; a sober use of meat, drink, physic, sleep, labor, and recreations; by charitable thoughts, love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness; peaceable, mild and courteous speeches and behavior; forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil; comforting and succoring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent.
Q136: What are the sins forbidden in the sixth
commandment?
A136:
The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the
life of ourselves, or of others, except in case of public justice, lawful war,
or necessary defense; the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary
means of preservation of life; sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge;
all excessive passions, distracting cares;
immoderate use of meat, drink, labor, and recreations; provoking words,
oppression, quarreling, striking, wounding, and: Whatsoever else tends to the
destruction of the life of any.
A.
Basic Thrust
1.
God as Lord of life: Genesis 1:20ff,
28ff, 2:7, 17, 3:14‑20, 4:8‑16, 6:3, 11, Deuteronomy 30:20, 32:36f,
Psalm 139:13‑16, John 1:4, 3:15f, 4:14, 5:26, 6:35‑48, 6:63‑68,
10:10, 12:50, 14:6, 20:31. Physical, spiritual, eternal.
2.
As creator and redeemer, then, life is in
God's hands. We may take human life only with his authorization.
3.
Meaning of ratzach: "slay"
a)
Generally for unlawful, forbidden
killing, except in Numbers 35:30, where the use may be ironic.
b)
Not used for animal killings or for mass
killings in war.
c)
Applies to manslaughter and negligent
homicide, even accidental killing Deuteronomy 4:41ff, 19:4ff, Numbers 35: 22ff
Joshua 20:3. The "doctrine of carefulness."
(1)
Distinctions
(a)
Voluntary manslaughter: intent to kill,
but no premeditation. Fit of rage in Gen. 34:25, 49:6.
(b)
Involuntary manslaughter: no intent to
kill, but behaving in a way likely to destroy life, as in reckless driving.
(c)
Negligent homicide: failure to take
adequate precautions, Ex. 21:29, Deut. 22:8.
(d)
Accidental killing, Deut. 19:5.
(2)
These are crimes in Scripture, even (d),
which modern law would entirely excuse. One who kills someone accidentally is a
"slayer" (rotzeach).
(3)
The penalty: if it is proved that the
"slayer" is guilty of manslaughter, not murder, he must remain in the city of
refuge until the death of the high priest. If he ventures outside the city, the
avenger of blood may kill him without penalty.
(4)
The point:
(a)
The slayer is impressed with the need to
be careful with human life, to avoid even the possibility of its unjust
destruction. The punishment fits the crime. Now he must be very, very careful
with his own life.
(b)
Even accidental killing may not be
forgiven until blood is shed (that of the high priest).
(5)
Similarly, Jesus in Matthew 5:21‑26
places a high priority on the sanctity of life. Compare Lev. 19:16-18, 1 John
3:14-16.
(a)
He tells us to guard against even the
causes of murder (anger ‑ only a potential cause). Matt. 5:22, Compare
James 1:20.
(b)
He tells us to avoid even verbal abuse,
Matt. 5:22, compare 1 Sam. 25:10, 2 Sam. 16:7-8, Prov. 12:18.
(c)
He places a higher priority on
reconciliation than on worship.
(d)
The only alternative to murder, then, is
love. Any lack of love is a violation of this command (broad thrust).
(6)
But some anger is legitimate.
(a)
God's own jealousy, Num. 5:11-31, Deut.
32:21.
(b)
Imprecatory Psalms, 69, 109, 137, 139.
(c)
Temporary anger with another, Eph. 4:26.
Tit. 1:7 says we should be slow to
anger, and God is. That implies there is a legitimate place for anger.
(d)
Unfortunately, righteous and unrighteous
anger are often mixed, or hard to distinguish.
4.
The commandment restricts personal
vengeance, leaving it in the hands of God and the civil authorities.
a)
O.T. vs. private vengeance, Leviticus
19:18, Proverbs 20: 22, 24:29, Exodus 23:4.
b)
N.T.: Matthew 5:21, 38‑42, Romans
12:14‑21.
c)
Right of civil magistrate to avenge,
Romans 13:4, O.T., Genesis 9:6.
B.
Love of Neighbors and Enemies
1.
The OT mandates kindness to enemies, but
primarily within Israel, Lev. 19:18, Prov. 24:17, 25:21, and resident
foreigners, Lev. 19:34.
2.
In NT
(a)
The Great Commission mandates
outward-facing love—to all nations.
(b)
Even harder: Love to those outside my
community-- who cross my path, Luke 10:25-37.
C.
Non‑resistance: Matthew 5:38‑41,
Romans 12:14, 19‑21
1.
Literal interpretations
a)
Invite someone to hit you back? That
would be inducing the aggressor to greater sin.
b)
Forego self‑defense? But cf. Exodus
22:2-3, biblical teaching concerning war, punishment. [Note, however, the
sacredness of life, in that if someone breaks into your house in the daytime,
you should protect his life (Douma)!]
2.
Contextual considerations
a)
Verses 43ff deal with love of enemies, of
which 38‑41 describes an example. But love is opposed to hatred, not self‑defense.
b)
The issue in 38‑41 seems to be a
distortion of the law of talion. That
law, intended as a principle of public justice, has been used to justify
personal vengeance and vindictiveness. Self‑defense is not vengeance.
3.
Summary of the teaching
a)
If someone hits you, do not hit him back
out of vengeance or anger.
b)
Be prepared to forgive.
4.
Seen in this way, the passages do not
oppose self‑defense or the use of force by civil magistrates.
D.
War
1.
War in O.T.
a)
Peace, not war, is glorified in Scripture
as the consummation of redemption (Isaiah 2:4, 9:6f, 11:616), Psalm 46:9,
120:6f). David, the man of war (though a man after God's own heart!) is not
permitted to build the temple, I Chron. 22:18f, 28:3. War is the result of sin,
James 4:1f.
b)
Herem
warfare, Deuteronomy 20:16‑18; cf. 7:1ff, Joshua 6-8.
(1)
Total destruction of all people and
animals.
(2)
No booty
(3)
Against all cities of the promised land.
c)
Non-herem warfare (against cities "at a
distance"), Deuteronomy 20:1‑15, l9f, Numbers 21:14, Deuteronomy 7:1.
(1)
Priestly address, verses 2‑4: God
will give victory.
(2)
Ritual cleanness, 23:9‑14, Joshua
3:5.
(3)
Priests blow trumpets, Joshua 6:4,
Numbers 31:6.
(4)
Offer of peace (demands capitulation),
Deuteronomy 20:10‑12.
(5)
If offer refused and Israel gains
victory, put men to sword (20:13), take women and children prisoner, plunder
for yourselves (14), cf. 21:10‑14.
d)
Exemptions from military service,
Deuteronomy 20:5‑9, 24:5, Numbers 1:49 (?) new vineyard, engagement,
recent marriage, fear, Levites.
e)
Do not destroy fruit trees during siege,
Deuteronomy 20:19f.
f)
Note that all Israel's wars are holy. In
that regard, it would be unwise for us to import the principles of Deut. 20
into modern warfare.
2.
War in N. T.:
a)
War from sin, James 4:lf.
b)
Non‑resistance: above, B.
c)
Soldiers: exhorted to justice (Luke
3:14), but not told to leave the army.
d)
Sword not given to the church, Matthew
26:52, John 18:1‑11
e)
Gospel will provoke violence, Matthew
10:34, Revelation 11:7, 12:7, 17, 13:7, 19:19.
f)
War as metaphor for the Christian life,
Ephesians 6, II Corinthians10:3, I Timothy 1:18, II Timothy 2:4,
I Pet. 2:11.
g)
Sword given to civil magistrate, Romans
13, Acts 25: 11.
3.
Pacifism
a)
In early church? Evidence weak either
way. Some opposition to military service based on the pagan oaths and
celebrations. Some who opposed it (Justin, Origen) were willing to pray for
military victory. Thus the objection does not seem to center on the
illegitimacy of all force.
b)
Tenets
(1)
O.T. wars represent a divine
condescension to Israel's hardness of heart, a primitive stage in progressive
revelation.
(2)
The state is outside the will of God,
though God uses it for his purposes. (Cf. discussion of Yoder under Fifth Commandment) Pacifists differ among themselves as
to the extent to which a believer may participate in the state.
(3)
The Christian's first loyalty is international,
to the world‑wide body of Christ. We cannot kill our bothers and sisters
in Christ, or indeed potential converts.
c)
Reply
(1)
Inadequate view of Old Testament.
(2)
Wrong view of the state, especially
Romans 13.
(3)
The state has a right to kill even
professing believers in the just exercise of its authority. If we say that no
one has such a right, we are denying to God the right to do this in his
chosen way.
(4)
Just War Theory
(Cicero, Augustine, Suarez, Grotius)
(a)
Tenets (as summarized by Arthur Holmes in
War, Four Christian Views)
(i)
Just cause (only defense)
(ii)
Just intention (to secure just peace, not
revenge, conquest, economic gain, ideological supremacy)
(iii)
Last resort (after all other methods have
been tried and failed)
(iv)
Formal declaration (to indicate that the
war is an act of government, not individuals only. Only government may wage a
just war.)
(v)
Limited objectives (not total
destruction, surrender)
(vi)
Proportionate means (limited to what is
necessary to repel, deter future attacks), probability of success.
(vii) Noncombatant
immunity (POW's, wounded, civilian noncombatants immune from attack).
(b)
Derived from natural law plus biblical
elements.
(5)
Some Conclusions
(a)
Use of the O.T. Law
(i)
Israel, as God's holy nation, was given a
divine promise of victory (contingent, of course, upon its faithfulness to the
covenant), Deuteronomy 20:4 ‑ not only for herem war, but for normal wars as well. I don't believe that any
modern nation can claim that promise.
(ii)
Notice also the role of the priesthood,
ceremonial cleansings. Thus, not only the herem
wars, but all wars in Israel are "holy" wars, "wars of the Lord" (Numbers
21:14).
(iii)
Restrictions on Israel's military might
(above; see also Deuteronomy 17:16).
(a)
The anti‑militarist strain in the
O.T. is partly a means of enforcing, underscoring the special divine promise of
victory. The was is won by God's promise, not by horses, Psalm 20:7, 33:12‑22,
76:6, 147:10f, Isaiah 30:15-18, 31:1-3, 36:8-10, Exodus 15:1-5. Since our
nation does not have such a promise, it is not evident that our defenses ought
to be similarly restricted.
(b)
Another reason for the restriction
against chariots and horses seems to be that Egypt was the source of such
weapons. Israel is not to trust in alliances with Egypt, but must remember what
God did to Egypt and its chariots in delivering Israel, Exodus 15:1ff.
(c)
On the other hand, these restrictions
also seem to be aimed at discouraging the development of a war‑centered
culture, where defense takes priority over all other aspects of life (worship,
family life, production). War is a necessary evil, not a suitable focus of
community life (so I Chronicles 22:18f). This concern seems to be as valid now
as in the O.T.
(d)
The principle, then should be that a
nation should acquire the minimum military might which will give it an adequate
defense.
(iv)
Clearly, herem warfare is no longer in effect. Thus no modern nation should
seek the total annihilation of another culture.
(b)
Just war tenets (Natural law basis is a
weakness)
(i)
Just cause
(a)
Clearly Scripture warrants warfare only
in a just cause. God is a God of justice.
(b)
Since civil obedience is limited by God's
law, (I), Christians should refuse to serve in an unjust war.
(c)
A pluralistic society ought to allow the
right of selective conscientious objection, to allow its citizens to
object conscientiously to a particular war.
(d)
Rights of soldiers to disobey unjust
orders should be upheld (contra the
Nuremberg defense).
(e)
In general, the only just cause is
defense. But this fact should not be taken to preclude a preemptive strike
against a nation which clearly threatens our security. The "normal war" of
Deuteronomy 20 (a siege war) seems to presuppose such a situation.
(f)
Is it ever legitimate to conscript troops
(or give other military assistance) to defend another nation? (Cf. the
U.S. role in Vietnam.)
(i)
A nation is obligated to keep the treaty
commitments it makes, even when those turn out to have been unwise (Psalm 15:4,
Joshua 9, 10:115).
(ii)
There is, however, no clear Scriptural
authorization for such treaties, unless they are necessary to the defense of
the nation agreeing to supply such assistance.
(ii)
Just intention: "securing a just peace"
is the goal, but achieving that may involve conquest or drastic cultural
reconstruction (Deuteronomy 20:11-15).
(iii)
Last resort: Yes (Deuteronomy 20:10),
unless of course, as defense against
present attack.
(iv)
Formal declaration
(a)
Scripture does restrict war‑making
to governments.
(b)
Cf. the "offer of peace" (Deuteronomy
20:10), the blowing of trumpets (Joshua 6:4, Numbers 31:6).
(c)
But lack of a declaration should not slow
defensive response when a nation is attacked.
(v)
Limited objectives: Yes, but note
reservation above under ii. No more herem.
(vi)
Proportionate means: Yes. Note argument
above under a, iii.
(vii) Noncombatant
immunity
(a)
In O.T. "normal war," some noncombatants
were killed, evidently: Deuteronomy 20:13, Numbers 31:15-17.
(b)
Preservation of women, children and
livestock in Deuteronomy 20:14 seems to be by permission rather than
commandment. In Numbers 31:15‑17 (which was not a herem war since there was not total destruction), there was a
broader range of killing.
(c)
The pattern, then, seems to be that a
just war justifies sufficient killing to achieve its objective ‑ which
may sometimes involve, again, drastic social reconstruction.
(d)
Scripture, then, is more realistic than
much "just war" theory, and more applicable to modern problems:
(i)
Problem of guerrilla wars where children
and women carry rifles and where combatants and noncombatants are
indistinguishable.
(ii)
Problem of situations in which a
government will intentionally plant its military forces and equipment in the
midst of civilian populations.
(iii)
Nuclear war (see below).
(e)
Still, the sixth commandment and the
"doctrine of carefulness" require most scrupulous attention to the question of
whether a given attack is necessary to the objective.
(6)
Nuclear War and Deterrence:
The following discussion is an attempt to apply the above principles. It owes much
to Michael Novak's "Moral Clarity in the Nuclear Age," National Review (April 1, 1983).
(a)
Nature of the Soviet Threat
(i)
Communism by its own statements and by
its internal logic requires world conquest.
(ii)
Soviet military might
(a)
Far superior to west in conventional
arms.
(b)
Geared to offensive war (while west is
geared to defense) in Europe.
(c)
The arms race: "When we built, they
(USSR) built; when we stopped building, they built" (Harold Brown, Defense
Secretary under President Carter.)
(iii)
Marxism justifies, and the USSR has
always practiced, the breaking of agreements when in their interest. They
express contempt for "bourgeois formalism."
(iv)
On‑site inspection to verify an
arms‑control agreement would require an openness drastically foreign to
Soviet custom. Satellite and other long‑distance verification can be
foiled.
(b)
Our Obligation to Defend the Innocent
(i)
Defense is a fundamental responsibility
of government, Romans 13:3f, Genesis 9:6.
(ii)
U.S. is committed to the defense of
Europe and Japan, as well as its own territory.
(c)
Problems in Nuclear Deterrence
(i)
Possibility of failure, even provocation
of attack by USSR
(a)
So far it has been successful (35 years!)
(b)
Soviets do not fear conventional war, but
they appear to be genuinely afraid of nuclear exchange.
(c)
Deterrence, like any strategy, is
imperfect; but what alternative is more likely to work? [see d, below]
(ii)
Expensive: a "war on the poor"
(a)
It is difficult to justify from Scripture
the attempt to make government responsible for welfare programs.
(b)
Nuclear deterrence is far cheaper than an
equivalent conventional deterrent would be.
(c)
From 1960‑1980, military spending
as percentage of GNP and federal budget declined by nearly ½.
(d)
Nuclear weapons in 1983 constitute only
9% of the military budget, 2.9% of the federal budget, 0.6% of GNP.
(iii)
"Psychological Damage" of Deterrence
Policy (Provoking sense of terror, despair in society): What if we reinstituted
the draft, sought to raise taxes to produce a comparable conventional
deterrent? What if we simply surrendered?
(iv)
Lack of Proportionality: Use of nuclear
weapons seems unthinkable. Would a nuclear war not be a herem war in the biblical sense ‑ the total destruction of
one nation (and likely of many)? In the "normal wars" of Israel, God commanded
them to preserve even the enemy's fruit trees (Deuteronomy 20:19‑20)!
(a)
The decision facing us is indeed a
terrible one. We must earnestly seek, and pray for, an alternative [below, d].
(b)
The intent of a nuclear deterrence
policy, however, is that it is the best way to prevent a nuclear
exchange. If this is correct, then it is the abandonment of deterrence
which will place the world in the greatest danger.
(c)
But doesn't a deterrence policy require a
"secondary intention to use nuclear weapons" (i.e., if our first intention, to
prevent nuclear war, fails, must we not be prepared to do the unthinkable? Yes,
as a policeman carrying a gun hopes to thereby deter any exchange of gunfire,
but if that hope fails must be prepared to shoot.
(d)
It has not been established that one
nuclear exchange (say, the use of tactical nuclear weapons in a European
conflict) will immediately lead to the destruction of all life on earth. Those
who claim this is certain and that we should not prepare for life after such an
exchange are irresponsible.
(e)
Destruction of non‑combatants: see
5, b, vii, above.
(f)
Destruction of fruit trees: would nuclear
war be a "war on the earth?" The commandment to preserve the trees in
Deuteronomy 20 is in context of a siege war. In such a situation, the enemy
(locked in the city) has no access to the fruit trees. Destroying them would
give Israel no strategic advantage, nor would it help in Israel's defense. The
only motivation for destroying them would be to ruin the enemy's economy after
the war, perhaps to destroy even the possibility of using the land again. But
such wanton destruction is forbidden in "normal" war. The situation in a
nuclear exchange, however, is very different. If nuclear weapons are used (as a
last resort, of course!) then they must be necessary for defense.
Destroying fruit trees in this case is not herem
desolation) it is defense.
(v)
Summary. The problems involved in nuclear
deterrence are formidable. But if there is no alternative, nuclear deterrence,
even the use of nuclear weapons, can be justified.
(d)
Possible Alternatives
(i)
Simple abandonment of nuclear deterrence
without any strategy to replace it. This would increase the risk, as I see it,
of war and lead eventually to our enslavement.
(ii)
Pledge of no first use: could encourage
Soviets to undertake conventional war. Since our conventional deterrent is
inadequate, we would be forced to surrender or to break our pledge, in which
case nuclear war would be made more likely.
(iii)
Nuclear freeze:
(a)
Would, most likely, allow Soviets to keep
their present advantage.
(b)
This could motivate them to use that
advantage, contrary to the wishes of freeze advocates.
(c)
They would not be sufficiently motivated
to enter arms reduction negotiations or to make significant concessions in such
negotiations.
(iv)
Arms reduction agreement: desirable, but
(a)
An adequate one may be many years off.
(b)
Adequate inspection may not be acceptable
to USSR in any case.
(c)
Granted the history and principle behind
Soviet deceitfulness, we dare not adopt an agreement without more‑than-adequate
verification.
(v)
Anti‑ballistic system: Defensive
weapons against nuclear attack.
(a)
In general, this is morally far superior
to the present system. What we have now is not a true defense, but a policy of
retaliation. We cannot stop an attack, only retaliate after the fact.
"Mutual assured destruction" ‑
MAD. This system is a deterrent and a successful one. But biblical ethics
demands a search for a more strictly defensive system ‑ one which
would prevent loss of life in a nuclear attack, not double it.
(b)
However, ABM systems were halted by SALT
I. Although SALT I has expired, both US and USSR have promised to continue
observing its terms. Thus there may be complications involved in reviving the
ABM idea.
(c)
ABM development would certainly proceed
on both sides, suggesting an increased arms race, each side seeking ways to foil
the other's ABM
(d)
Technological problems may be too great;
but we should not assume that at this early date.
(vi)
Increased commitment to conventional
deterrence
(a)
This may be necessary to reduce the
"nuclear threshold": If we can counter Soviet conventional attack with
conventional weapons, this will reduce the number of possible occasions (and
temptations) to push the nuclear button.
(b)
But costs of such a commitment are
enormous, and such an increase could take many years. And it would not even
then erase the need for nuclear deterrence.
(e)
Conclusion: horrible as is the thought of
a nuclear war, the policy of nuclear deterrence seems, for now, the best hope
for avoiding it. That policy ought to be maintained until/unless an adequate
arms control agreement is reached or a reliable ABM system is developed.
E.
Abortion
1.
Exodus 21:22‑25
a)
Three Interpretations
(1)
"Live birth" interpretation (OPC Report,
Frame in Thou Shalt not Kill)
(a)
Case A (vs. 22)
(i)
"fruit depart" ‑ yeled, yatza'
(a)
Not a technical expression for abortion
(b)
Can naturally describe a premature birth
(c)
Other terms (e.g. nefel, shakol) would more
naturally describe abortion or miscarriage.
(ii)
"no harm" — indefinite (no lah), so applies to both mother and
child.
(b)
Case B (verses 23‑25)
(i)
"If any harm follow" ‑ to either mother
or child
(a)
Since referent not specified
(b)
Since it applies to either in verse 22.
(ii)
Law of talion. implies that destruction of fetus or mother is
capital crime; no difference between them.
(c)
Thus on this interpretation the text is
strongly anti‑abortion.
(i)
The situation described is not even
abortion per se; there is an element
of accident in it (most likely).
(ii)
A fully intentional destruction of the
child would, if anything, be even more heinous.
(2)
"Miscarriage" interpretation (Early
Kline)
(a)
Case A
(i)
Language is parallel to extra-biblical
miscarriage texts, so it suggests that a miscarriage has taken place as a
result of the blow.
(ii)
Therefore, the "no harm" can pertain only
to the mother.
(b)
Case B
(i)
Apparently, then, this case differs from
Case A in that here harm is done to the mother.
(ii)
It seems as if the penalty for harming
the mother, then, (talion) is far
more severe than the penalty for harming the child (a fine).
(c)
Implications
(i)
Some would argue that the difference in
penalty indicates a difference in nature: the mother is a person, the child
something less. Supporting this conclusion is the fact that monetary penalties
are generally not considered sufficient to avenge the loss of human life.
(a)
However, there are exceptions to the last‑mentioned
principle. In verse 32 of this chapter we find (in effect) monetary atonement
for the killing of slaves. It would be precarious to argue from this that the
slave is not considered to be a person.
(b)
Thus the difference in penalty does not
entail a difference in personhood.
(c)
It can be argued that there is not even a
difference in penalty here. See "Later Kline" interpretation, discussed below.
(ii)
More significantly: Even on this
interpretation, the passage contains a protection for unborn life. The woman is
given a specific protection by the law because she is pregnant. Loss of
the child is a crime. Wanton, intentional destruction of it, we may presume,
would be worse. Thus, even on this interpretation (dear to "pro‑choice"
advocates), the text has a pro‑life thrust.
(3)
"Later Kline" interpretation ("A Study of
Exodus 21:22‑25," Journal of the
E.T.S , 1977.)
(a)
Case A
(i)
Bepllym
(translated "as the judges determine") actually indicates "liability to death."
(ii)
Thus the husband has the right to demand
any penalty up to the death penalty.
(iii)
The "fine" mentioned would be, in effect,
a ransom for the life of the man who struck the woman see 21:30, Numbers 35:21,
Leviticus 24:18.
(iv)
Most likely, the "harm" in this case is
done to the woman not the child. (Opposite of the "live birth"
interpretation )
(a)
Nagaf
suggests a sharp, even fatal blow.
(b)
Injury to the woman explains the
husband's involvement in setting the penalty.
(b)
Case B
(i)
The law of talion here is equivalent to the penalty of Case A.
(a)
Talion
is not a precise, literal principle. It is consistent with ransom procedures:
Numbers 35:31, Leviticus 24:18, Deuteronomy 19:15‑21.
(b)
Thus there is no difference in penalty
between the two cases.
(ii)
Most likely, harm to the child is in view
here
(a)
Since the mother is in view in Case A
(b)
Since the "harm" is likely not indefinite.
(c)
Since parallel middle‑Assyrian texts put the woman first, then the fetus
(iii)
No qualification as to the age of the
fetus; any unborn child is in view.
(iv)
The language suggests that the fetus is
human
(a)
"Life for life" in Leviticus 24:18 does
apply to animals.
(b)
But "eye for eye" and "tooth for tooth"
not used for animals.
(c)
Implications
(i)
No difference in penalty between death of
the mother and death of the child
(ii)
Positive evidence of the child's
humanity.
(iii)
Legal protection of the child in effect a
death penalty for his destruction.
(d)
Significant postscript: Kline notes that
this text does not deal with voluntary abortion. That crime, he says,
"was so abhorrent to the Israelite mind that it was not necessary to have a
specific prohibition dealing with it in the Mosaic law. The Middle Assyrian
Laws attest to the abhorrence that was felt for this crime even among the
heathen nations around Israel, lacking the illumination of special revelation
though they were. For in those laws a woman guilty of abortion was condemned to
be crucified (Tablet A, law 53). Even if she managed to lose her own life in
producing the abortion, she was still to be impaled and hung up in shame as an
expression of the community's repudiation of such an abomination. It is hard to
imagine a more damning commentary on what is taking place in enlightened
America today than that provided by this legal witness out of the conscience of
benighted ancient paganism."
b)
Conclusions
(1)
On all three interpretations (even the
seemingly more liberal "miscarriage" interpretation) the passage protects
unborn life.
(2)
Nothing in this discussion warrants the
conclusion that the child is of less value than the mother; certainly there is
no implication that he is less than a person.
(3)
Since there is no mention of the age of
the fetus on any interpretation, we must assume that all unborn life of
whatever age is protected, i.e from conception.
(4)
Which interpretation is right? The "Later
Kline" view is the most ingenious, but the "live birth" view still seems more
natural. I defended the latter some years ago, but the former attracts me.
2.
Psalm 139:13-16
a)
Use of personal pronouns: David sees himself
("me," "my,") in the womb.
b)
He exists as a person in the womb from
conception (v. 15).
c)
Might this usage be anachronistic? (We
say "The Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock," realizing that it wasn't called
"Plymouth Rock" at the time. Maybe David uses "me" and "my" because he doesn't
have any other language to designate the fetus.)
(1)
This is possible; thus the present
argument is not watertight.
(2)
It is significant, however.
(a)
This passage reflects a constant pattern
of Scriptural usage. See Jeremiah 1:4, Genesis 25:23ff, 38:27, Job 31:15, 18,
Psalm 22:9, Hosea 12:3.
(b)
Scripture never suggests that the unborn
child is anything less than a human person.
3.
Psalm 51:5
a)
The passage is a confession of David's
sin. David traces that sin back to conception.
b)
To suppose that verse 5 speaks of his
mother's sin would be entirely out of keeping with the context and the overall
purpose of the Psalm.
c)
But sin is a quality which pertains only
to persons. It is not a quality of mere cells or protoplasm or of a part
of a woman's body.
d)
Thus the text assumes that David was a
person from conception.
e)
Might this text be a non‑literal,
poetic description? Yes; but see 2, c above.
4.
Judges 13:3‑5
(a)
Samson is to be a Nazarite from birth,
even before birth.
(b)
Thus his mother, during her pregnancy,
must keep the Nazarite abstinence (from wine, strong drink, unclean food).
(c)
This abstinence begins immediately,
before the child is conceived, v. 3. Thus the supposition is that Samson is a
Nazarite from conception.
(d)
But being a Nazarite (like being a
sinner') seems to presuppose personhood.
5.
Luke 1:35:
Jesus becomes incarnate through an act of the Holy Spirit. This act causes Mary
to conceive. Thus from his conception, Jesus is "God made flesh." Could
he have been, from conception, any less than a person?
6.
Obligation to defend the weak and
helpless: Psm. 41:1, 72:12, 82:3-4, Amos 4:1,
Isa. 58:5-7, 9-10.
7.
Conclusion from Scriptural Evidence
(a)
Scripture does not say explicitly
that unborn children are persons from conception.
(b)
Passages which suggest this
conclusion do contain exegetical difficulties, so the case is not water‑tight.
(c)
Still, there are passages which, on their
most reasonable interpretations, imply ("good and necessary consequence") the
personhood of the unborn.
(d)
These passages form a regular Scriptural
Pattern.
(e)
No passages contradict this pattern.
(f)
Thus, we have a "highly probable" case
for the personhood of the unborn.
8.
Scientific Evidence
(a)
This is not a matter than can be resolved
by scientific evidence alone (i.e. without value‑presuppositions derived
from Scripture).
(i)
Recall "naturalistic fallacy" argument.
(ii)
"Personhood" is an ethical
concept. A person is (among other things) someone with a right to life.
The presence of a right (or the basis of one) cannot be deduced from statements
about chromosomes, implantation, etc.
(iii)
Thus the Scriptural evidence must carry
the primary weight.
(b)
Still, the scientific evidence is
consistent with what we have said already.
(i)
Each fertilized egg contains a full
compliment of chromosomes which differ from those of its mother and those of
its father. Thus in the most obvious sense, it is a distinct individual, not
merely part of its mother's body.
(ii)
To be sure, the unborn child is dependent
upon his mother's body for sustenance. But this does not make him less than a
person.
(a)
It is conceivable that one day a
fertilized egg might be raised entirely outside the womb. Only technological
limitations prevent this. Thus the connection between the unborn child and the
mother for life support is not inevitable.
(b)
Even after birth, a child is dependent on
others for life‑support. In one sense, that dependence never ends. Thus
such dependence may not be taken to refute the personal nature of the child.
(iii)
Science cannot draw a line between a
period during pregnancy when the child is not a person and another period when
he is. (This is related to point a, above.) Some have tried to draw such a line
at various points (implantation, beginning of brain‑wave activity,
quickening, viability, birth, after birth), but without success.
9.
The "Doctrine of
Carefulness" (VI, A, 3 above)
(a)
Is the case for the personhood of the
child, then, only probable? Yes, though highly probable.
(b)
Yet it is possible to say with certainty
that abortion, in most all cases, is a sin.
(i)
The "doctrine of carefulness" warns us
against acts which may even possibly result in the loss of innocent
life.
(ii)
Since the unborn child is very
probably a human being, we dare not strike it down. We cannot kill it "out
of faith" (Romans 14:23).
(iii)
Some: "If you can't prove it from
Scripture, we are free to act as we like." Reply: Imagine a hunting trip. I see
a shape in the woods, but I'm unsure as to whether it is a man or a deer. I
can't prove it is a man (let alone prove from Scripture that it is a man). Do I
then have the right to shoot? Of course not. I must apply principles of
Scripture to my situation according to my best judgment. If I don't, I am
guilty of negligence at best.
10.
Can Abortion Ever Be Justified?
(a)
Rape, incest, population control,
economic need, psychological health, physical health of mother, possibility (or
certainty) of deformity.
(i)
We ought not to brush aside these
situations. They can be terribly traumatic. We must reply to these concerns
with love, gentleness, understanding.
(ii)
However, they do not, in the end, provide
substantial arguments for abortion [cf. OPC Report for extensive
discussion).
(iii)
The crucial point: none of these
situations justifies the killing of a person. Most people would hesitate
to kill an infant already born for any of these reasons. No one can show that
an unborn infant is in any different ethical category.
(b)
To save the life of the mother.
(i)
This situation rarely occurs. An ectopic
pregnancy would be one example.
(ii)
When it does, however, I would say that
abortion is legitimate.
(A) As
a means of self‑defense, with the child in the role of unjust aggressor.
(B) Since
both persons will otherwise die, it is not wrong, I think, to put one to death
to save the other. But that is a difficult point.
(c)
General rule: abortion can be justified
only in situations where, in an analogous case, one would be justified in
killing a person already born.
F.
Death and Dying
1.
Definitions of Death
a)
Theologically
(1)
Separation of soul and body.
(2)
Consequence of sin: thus physical death
is a symptom and image of spiritual death and eternal death.
b)
Empirically
(1)
Scripture contains no explicit criteria
for determining when death has occurred.
(2)
It does, however, warrant the recognition
of death. There is a point after which the proper treatment of a body is to
dispose of it, not to seek its healing. After that point, contact with the
corpse in the Old Covenant rendered one "unclean."
(3)
The general idea seems to be that someone
is dead when signs of life (generally breathing in Scripture: Genesis 2:7,
6:17, 17:15, 22, I Kings 17:17-22, Job 27:3, 12:10, etc., Mark 15:37) are
absent and there is no possibility of restoring them through current
technology.
(4)
The "doctrine of carefulness"
(a)
A problem arises here. If God's people
are to avoid even the possible destruction of a human life, how can we ever
cease treatment? How can we ever recognize the occurrence of death?
(b)
Reply:
(i)
The problem here is not, as in the case
of abortion, the problem of whether the cells in view constitute a human
person. Here the cells do constitute a person, whether that person is
dead or alive. Even the corpse is a person ("the person as respects his
body‑" J. Murray).
(ii)
A distinction must be drawn between
"killing" and "allowing to die" (see below). The former is always ruled out by
the "doctrine of carefulness." The latter is only sometimes ruled out. And a
third category, "recognizing death," is never ruled out.
(5)
Modern criteria
(a)
"Brain death": irrevocable brain damage
causing irreversible cessation of respiration (even if heart is still beating).
Generally indicated by flat EEG, though not always. A flat EEG can sometimes be
restored. But when it is irreversible, then there is brain death. This is the
usual modern medical criterion.
(b)
I see this as a refinement of the more
phenomenological biblical criterion (breathing). Brain death is the cause of
irreversible cessation of breathing. With this refinement, we can make better
judgments as to when breathing is irreversibly stopped ‑ when brain
damage of a certain kind is present.
(c)
The fact that heartbeat and other organs
may be "kept alive" by artificial means despite brain death should not lead us
to question in these cases whether the patient is truly dead. Clearly, a corpse
does not become alive when we move its heart back and forth. A distinction must
be drawn between natural and artificial sources of function.
(d)
Thus Christians ought to accept the
modern concept of brain death, recognizing, of course, that the concept of irreversibility
is technology dependent, and that it is the responsibility of medical science
to seek ways of reversing presently irreversible cases. We should also
recognize that "cessation of all functions of the entire brain" (Uniform Determination of Death Act) is
difficult to determine unless we are also able to ascertain that heart and
lungs have irreversibly ceased to function.
2.
"Mercy Killing"
a.
= Killing somebody "for his own good."
b.
Motives
i.
To relieve pain. But medications can
handle most all pain today.
ii.
To prevent a "life not worth living:"
severe handicaps, illnesses, injuries.
(A) In
Jesus' kingdom: lepers, the blind, deaf, and lame.
(B) We
have no right to decide when life is worth living.
3.
Killing and Letting Die
a)
This distinction is sometimes described
as "active/ passive euthanasia," when referring to a case of great suffering or
terminal illness. The term "euthanasia," however, is very controversial and
probably generates more heat than light in this discussion. It is not very
appropriate for cases in general where "letting die" occurs.
b)
Is there a moral distinction between
"killing" and "letting die?"
(1)
In some cases, yes.
(a)
People die every moment without our
exerting any effort to save their lives. Sometimes (e.g., starving children in
India) this fact may be a sin on our part, though I think not always. In any
case we surely cannot be accused of "killing"' these people.
(b)
In choosing to save one drowning swimmer,
we may let another die. If we are doing all we can, surely no blame occurs.
(c)
If in case B we do not do all we
can to help, we have sinned, but we are not guilty of murder.
(2)
In other cases, no.
(a)
Refusing heart pills to a person
suffering a heart attack. Morally, in this case, "letting die" is a form of
killing.
(b)
Unplugging respirator of a rich uncle to
inherit his money.
(c)
Unplugging respirator too abruptly,
without
(d)
Withholding "ordinary means" of support
for dying person ‑ e.g. refusing to feed a deformed newborn, so that he
dies of starvation rather than of his affliction. (Note: Distinction between
"ordinary" and "extraordinary" means is not sharp. "Extraordinary," in
general, means either (1) expensive or difficult or (2) promising no reasonable
hope of benefit.)
c)
Terminal illness
(1)
When a patient is brain dead (above),
both "ordinary" and "extraordinary" (above) treatment may cease. Organs may be
preserved for transplants.
(2)
In patients which are not brain dead,
ordinary means of care ought not to be withheld.
(3)
Is it ever legitimate to withhold
extraordinary care (in the sense of care which is very expensive, difficult)?
(a)
According to Scripture, prolonging one's
physical life, though desirable, is not an absolute priority. John 10:11,
15:13, I John 3:16, II Corinthians 4‑5 (note 5:6ff), 11:21‑27,
Philippians 1:20‑26. Other principles, then, must be considered:
(b)
Relieving suffering.
(i)
"Mercy killing" as such is contrary to
Scripture.
(ii)
Still, medical treatment has the
function, not only of prolonging life, but also for relieving suffering. These
two goals aren't always consistent.
(iii)
Might it be better to give a treatment
that would maximize freedom from suffering at the expense of reducing life‑span?
The apostle Paul (Philippians 1:20ff) would probably have considered such
treatment.
(c)
Burdens of others.
(i)
Expense of treatment must also be
considered in comparison with the benefit likely to result.
(ii)
Would the apostle Paul have wished to
bankrupt the diaconate in order to prolong his physical life in a useless
state?
(d)
Availability of Resources: It would be
wrong to use a respirator indefinitely for a dying patient when it might be
used for another patient who under such care would recover fully. Benevolence
must always be "selective" because of our finitude and the finitude of our
resources.
4.
Suicide
a.
Five instances in Scripture: Saul (1 Sam.
31:3-51), Ahitophel (2 Sam. 17:23), Zimri (1 Kings 16:18-19), Judas (Matt.
27:3-5).
(i)
Scripture says nothing good or bad about
these acts themselves.
(ii)
1 Chron. 10:4, 14 tell us that the Lord killed Saul.
(iii)
But the larger context of their lives,
that led to their suicides, receives the critique of Scripture.
(iv)
But if murder is sinful due to the
destruction of God's image, then suicide is sinful for the same reason. (Douma)
b.
We should try to understand the often
tragic situations of those who commit suicide, without condoning the act.
Remind people that in Christ there is hope for the desperate.
c.
Suicide is not the unforgivable sin.
d.
Giving up one's life for one's friends is
actually commendable: Judg. 16:23-31 (Heb. 11:32, 39), John 15:13.
5.
The Dead Body:
Cremation, burial
a)
Early church resisted cremation
(1)
Burial was the biblical custom.
(2)
Burial gives more honor to the body as
God's image.
(3)
Burial is a testimony of faith in the
resurrection.
b)
Modern argument against burial: lack of
space, need of space for other things.
c)
In general, it seems to me that the
argument for burial still carries weight. We should avoid superstitions in this
area, however. God is as able, e.g., to resurrect a cremated body as to
resurrect a buried one.
G.
Obligation to Help
1.
Leviticus 19:16 in Jewish translation:
"...neither shalt thou stand idly by the blood of thy neighbor."
2.
Psalm 50:16‑22. "When thou sawest a
thief, then thou consentedst with him."
3.
Prov. 24:11, "Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward
slaughter."
4.
Luke 10:30‑37.
H.
Health and Safety
1.
O.T. laws concerning public health:
Leviticus 13‑15, Numbers 5:1‑4, Deuteronomy 24:8ff.
2.
Laws concerning drunkenness.
3.
But, again, physical health is not the
highest priority (cf. earlier discussion of terminal illness).
a)
Risking health in pursuit of one's
calling often necessary: persecution; breathing smog.
b)
All travel entails risk; but without it,
normal life is impossible.
c)
Alcoholic beverages are considered
legitimate in Scripture (Psalm 104:15, Ecclesiastes 10:19, Isaiah 55:1, John
2:3ff, I Timothy 5:23) even though a little ‑ alcohol destroys brain
cells.
d)
The benefit of wine is "merriment."
Sometimes even recreation may take precedence over physical perfection.
e)
Illegal drugs are obviously in a
different category.
(i)
Usually more dangerous, more addictive.
(ii)
A major social problem.
(iii)
Christians should abstain in deference to
government.
(iv)
But in my mind, legalization is an open
question.
I.
Biological Research
(genetic engineering, attempts to increase intelligence, cloning, test‑tube
babies, stem cell research, etc.) In general these are valuable developments of
science. Still, there are dangers:
1.
Using fertilized eggs for experimentation
or therapy, freely destroying them.
2.
Danger of elite or government dictating
genetic matters, limiting reproductive freedom.
3.
Manipulating people through drugs,
behavior therapy, etc. (Slavery).
4.
Genetic engineering
a.
I have no general objection to the use of
genetic engineering to improve the food supply or to produce new therapies.
Obviously much care should be taken.
b.
Genetic selection of human traits:
(i)
Should not proceed in such a way that
human embryos are destroyed.
(ii)
Not wrong to manipulate genes to minimize
genetic disease.
(iii)
Selecting for desirable physical and
mental traits? That too can be defended.
(iv)
Manipulating genes to grow "spare parts"
for transplants, etc., illegitimate in my view. Each child must be respected
and helped to realize his full personal potential.
J.
Ecology
1.
Does the Sixth commandment pertain only
to human life?
a)
Ratzach
is used only of humans.
b)
Yet Scripture teaches that even animal
life has the breath of God.
c)
God cares for all life, Job 39-40, Psm.
104:11-30, Prov. 6:6-8, Jonah 4:11, Matt. 6:26-30.
d)
Animals and plants in the coming kingdom,
Isa. 11:6-8, Rev. 22:2.
e)
Scripture mandates kindness to animals,
Ex. 20:10, 23:5, 12, 25:4, Prov. 12:10, care for trees, Deut. 20:19.
f)
Kline argues (Images of the Spirit) that
the animals and plants reflect God's theophany in various ways.
g)
Scripture protects the lower creation
(below). Man is lord of creation, but he is a steward, responsible to keep, not
exploit, the earth.
h)
Since human life is dependent on the
created environment, respect for human life entails respect for creation.
i)
Therefore, the sixth commandment, though
directed specifically to human life, involves other creatures by patterns of
analogy and logic in Scripture.
2.
Cultural mandate
a)
"Replenish" ‑ the earth is to be
maintained so as to give life to many generations.
b)
"Work" (Genesis 2:15) ‑ service
of land (abad). Man not only rules
the earth; he serves (Matthew 20:26).
c)
Thus the cultural mandate does not
justify exploitation of the environment.
3.
O.T. Laws (for pollution, see "Health and
Safety," above).
a)
Animals may eat freely of land during
seventh year (Exodus 23:10f, Leviticus 25:3‑8).
b)
Do not muzzle the ox, Deuteronomy 25:4, I
Timothy 5:18.
c)
Animals receive Sabbath rest, Deuteronomy
5:12ff, Exodus 20:8‑10.
d)
Kindness to animals, Proverbs 12:10,
Exodus 23:5, Deuteronomy 22:4ff, Hab. 2:17, Jonah 4:11.
e)
Good shepherd, John 10:11.
f)
Do not destroy fruit trees during siege,
Deuteronomy 20:19f.
g)
Give rest to the land, Exodus 23:10ff.,
II Chronicles 36:21.
4.
Comments
a. There is a strong
biblical basis for ecological responsibility, contrary to Lynn White, et al.
Still, the earth is to be developed, not left in a "pristine state."
Resources are to be used. God has given men sufficient creativity that
we are able to find ways of using without depleting. Human technology can enrich
the environment.
g.
No biblical basis for vegetarianism or
trans-species egalitarianism.
K.
Racial Justice
1.
Imperative of reconciliation is part of
the Sixth commandment (Matthew 5:21‑26, Murray, Principles, 162-167).
2.
Question of racial justice is essentially
a question of reconciliation.
a)
No serious biblical argument for
establishing dominance for one race or another. The curse on Canaan is
fulfilled in the Israelite conquest of the promised land.
b)
Similarly, there can be no justification
for the view that God established permanent barriers between the races. Racial
intermarriage is not contrary to Scripture, however many practical
problems it may create.
c)
The issue:
(1)
Africans were kidnapped and sold into
slavery in America.
(2)
Both kidnapping and the form of slavery
found in the American south are evil, sinful.
(3)
Thus, African Americans have a justified
grievance that has not been adequately resolved.
(4)
The history of segregation has brought
further hardship.
(5)
Matthew 5 puts a high priority on
resolving this grievance.
d)
Problems
(1)
Hard to assess blame at this temporal
distance.
(2)
Hard to find anyone who can speak
credibly for blacks or for whites in general.
(3)
But in specific relationships, we can try
harder to make up for historical injustice.
(a)
Voluntary affirmative action.
(b)
Pressing our own comfort zone in our
churches and social circles.
(c)
Showing hospitality.
(d)
Giving generously.
(4)
The goal:
(a)
purging of enmities. "Integration" of the
races in and of itself is not imperative.
(b)
Godly empowerment (Ellis, Free at Last).
L.
Denominational Reconciliation. (Evangelical Reunion)
1.
Christ wants the church to be one, John
17.
a)
"One in spirit, but not in organization?"
No hint of any such distinction in the text. The church is the body of Christ
and is also an organization with divinely appointed leadership.
b)
Vs. the idea of "pluriformity" (B. B.
Warfield, R. B. Kuiper) that divisions in the church are desirable expressions
of diversity.
c)
Denominations are always due to sin: When
some leave one denomination to start another, either they are guilty of sin, or
those in their previous denomination are, or, more likely, both.
2.
Without organizational unity,
Presbyterianism is impossible.
a)
Scripture gives no authority to
"denominations." "Churches" exist on the house‑level, the city-level, the
universal level. A denomination is not a church.
b)
Without a unified church, it is
impossible to appeal a case to the Christians in a particular area.
3.
Refusal to merge with another body is
equivalent to our placing of that body under discipline. Thus, refusal should
never be entertained without judicial procedure (safeguards). And union should
never be refused for reasons of a less serious character.
VII. The Seventh Commandment:
"Thou shalt not commit adultery."
Q138: What are the duties required in the seventh
commandment?
A138: The duties required in the seventh
commandment are, chastity in body, mind, affections, words, and behavior; and
the preservation of it in ourselves and others; watchfulness over the eyes and
all the senses; temperance, keeping of chaste company, modesty in apparel;
marriage by those that have not the gift of continency, conjugal love, and
cohabitation; diligent labor in our callings; shunning all occasions of
uncleanness, and resisting temptations thereunto.
Q139: What are the sins forbidden in the seventh
commandment?
A139:
The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of
the duties required, are, adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sodomy, and all
unnatural lusts; all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections;
all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto; wanton looks, impudent
or light behavior, immodest apparel; prohibiting of lawful, and dispensing with
unlawful marriages; allowing, tolerating, keeping of stews, and resorting to
them; entangling vows of single life, undue delay of marriage; having more
wives or husbands than one at the same time; unjust divorce, or desertion;
idleness, gluttony, drunkenness, unchaste company; lascivious songs, books,
pictures, dancings, stage plays; and all other provocations to, or acts of
uncleanness, either in ourselves or others.
C.
Marriage
1.
Sexual differentiation is an aspect of
the image of God, since the body as well as spirit belong to the image, Genesis
1:27ff, 5:1f, 9:6, 2:7, Psalm. 94:9.
a.
God as unity and diversity.
b.
Vs. feminist concept of the
interchangeability of roles. See discussion under fifth commandment.
2.
Marriage is a creation ordinance, Gen.
2:21-25.
a.
Leaving: the beginning of a new
household, authority structure.
b.
Cleaving: sexual, and more:
(i)
Non-sexual cleaving: loyal service, Ruth
1:4, 2 Sam. 20:2.
(ii)
"One flesh:" compare flesh as whole
person in Eph. 5:22-23, 29, 31.
3.
Purpose of marriage
a.
Help for a common task, Gen. 1:28-30.
b.
Bringing forth children, same passage.
c.
After the Fall, protection against
immorality, 1 Cor. 7:2.
d.
Sexual pleasure (below, 7).
4.
Marriage a good thing.
a.
Don't forbid, 1 Cor. 7, 1 Tim. 4:3, 5:14.
b.
In some situations ("the present crisis,"
1 Cor. 7:26) it may be inadvisable. But even then it is better to marry than to
be overcome with lust (verse 9).
5.
Marriage is a covenant, Ezek. 16:8, Mal.
2:14.
a.
Human (Ruth 4:7-13) and divine (Mal.
2:14-16) witnesses.
b.
Implies the necessity of a public
ceremony.
6.
Marriage reflects the covenant between
God and his people.
a)
Fall, Genesis 2:22-25, 3:7, Jer. 3:8-9,
5:7, Ezekiel 16, 23:37, Hosea 2-3, Romans 1:23-27. The attitude of rebellion
against God defiles also the marriage covenant. [Cf. discussion on Fifth
Commandment] and vice versa.
b)
Redemption, Genesis 3:21, Isa. 62:5,
Hosea 2, II Corinthians 11:2, Ephesians 5:22ff, I Corinthians 6:15-20,
I Timothy 3:2, 5:9.
7.
So a believer should not marry an
unbeliever, Deut. 7:3-4, Ezra 9-10, 1 Cor. 7:39, 9:5, 2 Cor. 6:14-18.
8.
Polygamy
a)
Not explicitly forbidden in the OT.
b)
But polygamy creates problems: Gen.
16:4-6, 29:16-24, Deut. 21:15-17, 1 Sam. 1:6-8, regulated.
c)
NT forbids church office to polygamists,
1 Tim. 3:6, Tit. 1:6, but evidently not church membership or the sacraments.
d)
But the kind of exclusive, lifelong love
characteristic of marriage excludes polygamy.
(i)
God ordained marriage between one man and
one woman.
(ii)
He forbade adultery; but polygamy
necessitates a similar sort of disloyalty.
9.
Sex in marriage
a)
A delight, not a necessary evil, Gen.
26:8, Prov. 5:18-19, Song of Songs, Isa. 62:5.
b)
Though parents often choose mates for
their children in Scripture, love is also a prominent motif in creating and
maintaining marriages: Gen. 24:67, 29:18-30, 1 Sam. 18:20, 28.
c)
Priests, Levites, and Apostles had the
right to marry. Not contrary to exemplary holiness.
d)
Wrong to abstain, except for a short time
for prayer and fasting, 1 Cor. 7:5-7.
B.
Adultery
1.
In Israel, this term is limited to cases
in which "a man who is either married or unmarried has sexual intercourse with
a married [or engaged] woman" (Douma, 243). See Deut. 22:24.
a.
A married man who has intercourse with a
woman who is neither married nor engaged, he is not considered an adulterer.
Bigamy, polygamy, and extra-marital sex of this kind were tolerated in men. In
Gen. 38, Tamar is charged with adultery, but Judah is not.
b.
Like a crime of property (compare Lev.
19:20-21), then; but the death penalty indicates something much more serious.
2.
In view of the covenant nature of
marriage, we may compare adultery to treason. So the death penalty is
appropriate, understandable in the context of Israel's special relation to God
as his holy people.
C.
Prostitution
1.
Not treated as seriously as adultery in
OT. Seems to be condoned in Gen. 38:15, Josh. 2 (Rahab) Judg. 16:1, 1 Kings 3.
2.
But going to a married prostitute is
folly and a road to disaster in Prov. 6:26, 34-35, 7:19-27.
3.
Adultery and prostitution in the same
category, Isa. 57:3, Ezek. 16:15-19, 23:1-49.
4.
Prostitution and God's presence (cultic
prostitution):
a)
The daughter of a priest should never be
a prostitute, Lev. 21:9
b)
Do not bring a prostitute into the
presence of God, Deut. 23:17-18. Even marital sex is inappropriate when God
draws near, Ex. 19:15.
5.
Certainly, then, prostitution is in the
category of ervath dabar (Deut. 24:1) or porneia (Acts 15:20, 29, 1 Cor. 6:18.).
Explicitly forbidden in 1 Cor. 6:13-14.
D.
Pre-marital Sex
1.
Rape of married or betrothed woman: death
penalty for rapist, Deuteronomy 22:25‑27. Her only responsibility is to
cry for help.
2.
Rape (seduction) of virgin, Deuteronomy
22:28f, Exodus 22:16f: He must marry her without possibility of divorce or pay
a dowry, as the girl's father requires.
3.
Otherwise, a woman found not to be a
virgin before marriage is considered in the same category as the adulteress,
Deuteronomy 22:13‑21. If she did not raise the issue [as 1, 2 above], she
is assumed to have consented.
4.
According to I Corinthians 7, marriage is
the only solution to pre‑marital sexual urges.
5.
Thus all premarital intercourse is
included in the porneia prohibited in
I Corinthians 6:18.
E.
Lust, Matthew
5:27f, I Corinthians 7:9.
1.
The above discussion, for the most part,
pertains to sexual intercourse as such. Many, however, who would not be guilty
of extra‑marital intercourse are involved in sexual activity in a broader
sense: necking, petting, kissing, masturbation, use of pornography, etc.
outside of marriage.
a)
Scripture says little about these
activities as such. Women were chaperoned in biblical times before marriage,
and they did not have the mobility of young people today. Thus it is unlikely
that there was much opportunity for sexual activity short of intercourse.
b)
Are there, then, any biblical principles
which apply to these matters? It seems the best we can do is to analyze the
biblical teaching concerning lust.
2.
Negatively:
a)
Lust is not sexual desire as such. That
is something good, a God‑given incentive toward marriage.
b)
Nor is it sexual desire for a particular
person other than a spouse.
(1)
I Corinthians 7:9 does not condemn the
desire as such, only a desire which cannot be controlled.
(2)
There is no condemnation of either (A)
sexual desire which leads to marriage or (B) sexual desire which remains
controllable and controlled.
c)
Nor is it lustful merely to imagine
sexual relationships. If such imaginings are forbidden, it is difficult to
conceive of how sex education could proceed.
d)
Similarly, lust should not be confused
with temptation. One may be tempted without sinning (cf. Jesus in Hebrews
4:15). We ought to avoid temptation and to seek release from temptation
in prayer. But if temptation comes, we are not guilty on that account. (Note:
if "homosexual orientation" is used to refer only to persons who frequently
experience homosexual temptations, then in that sense "homosexual orientation"
is not sinful.)
3.
Positively,
Lust is the desire to break God's law.
(1)
Cf. Tenth Commandment, Jesus'
condemnation of anger.
(2)
One may see a certain sexual relationship
as desirable without wanting to break God's law for it. Eve was not wrong in
thinking the fruit desirable, but in thinking that breaking God's law
was desirable.
(3)
In the spirit of the WLC, we should
surely also avoid occasions of lust,
situations in which we are likely to be tempted.
4.
Sexual activity short of intercourse.
a)
Some forms of sexual activity (kissing,
etc.) might take place without any desire to break God's law. Thus such
activities do not necessarily involve lust.
b)
People differ as to the situations in
which they are exposed to temptation.
c)
However, we need to guard ourselves in
such activities.
d)
Where draw the line? Discernment needed,
honesty, maturity. Remember that lust is a matter of the heart, not merely of
"crossing a line."
e)
Masturbation, even orgasms in sleep,
almost always involve lust in this sense. These are very common and are not as
serious as adultery, but they do illustrate the depth of sin in the human
heart.
F.
Birth Control
1.
The Roman Catholic Argument
a)
Based on natural law, primarily.
b)
Procreation is the essential purpose of
sexual activity; frustration of this purpose is "unnatural."
2.
Scriptural considerations
a)
The cultural mandate ("replenish the
earth") militates against birth control.
(1)
Conception is gift from God.
(2)
Blessing on large families: Abraham,
Psalm 127:3‑5.
(3)
The family as channel of God's grace.
b)
But one's calling may not allow for
marriage, in which case he is excused from literal compliance with the cultural
mandate, I Corinthians 7.
c)
If this is the case, then surely the
calling of a married couple might be inconsistent with their having a maximum
number of children.
d)
Procreation in Scripture is not the only
function of sexual activity, nor is it clearly a necessary function (else we
would expect prohibitions against sexual activity for women following
menopause, etc.)
e)
It is not clear that condoms, etc., are
any more "artificial" or "unnatural" than the "rhythm method" sanctioned by the
Roman Church. Indeed, abstinence itself, within marriage, is quite unnatural.
3.
"Overpopulation argument" invalid
a)
We will always need a new generation.
b)
It is best that there be a large
percentage of young people in the population.
c)
The "population problem" is essentially a
problem of economic organization. New Jersey is more densely populated than
India.
d)
Each child will either be part of the
problem or part of the solution. We have good reason to believe that children
from Christian homes, in general, will be part of the solution. They will not
exploit, but multiply, the earth's resources.
4.
Conclusion: birth control permissible,
but probably overused among Christians.
VIII.
The Eighth Commandment:
"Thou shalt not steal."
Q141: What are the duties required in the eighth
commandment?
A141:
The duties required in the eighth commandment are, truth, faithfulness, and justice in contracts and
commerce between man and man; rendering to everyone his due; restitution of
goods unlawfully detained from the right owners thereof; giving and lending freely, according to our
abilities, and the necessities of others; moderation of our judgments, wills,
and affections concerning worldly goods; a provident care and study to get,
keep, use, and dispose these things which are necessary and convenient for the
sustentation of our nature, and suitable to our condition; a lawful calling,
and diligence in it; frugality; avoiding unnecessary lawsuits and suretyship,
or other like engagements; and an endeavor, by all just and lawful means, to
procure, preserve, and further the wealth and outward estate of others, as well
as our own.
Q142: What are the sins forbidden in the eighth
commandment?
A142:
The sins forbidden in the eighth commandment, besides the neglect of the
duties required, are, theft, robbery, man-stealing, and receiving anything that
is stolen; fraudulent dealing, false weights and measures, removing land marks,
injustice and unfaithfulness in contracts between man and man, or in matters of
trust; oppression, extortion, usury, bribery, vexatious lawsuits, unjust
enclosures and depopulations; engrossing commodities to enhance the price;
unlawful callings, and all other unjust or sinful ways of taking or withholding
from our neighbor what belongs to him, or of enriching ourselves; covetousness;
inordinate prizing and affecting worldly goods; distrustful and distracting
cares and studies in getting, keeping, and using them; envying at the
prosperity of others; as likewise idleness, prodigality, wasteful gaming; and
all other ways whereby we do unduly prejudice our own outward estate, and defrauding
ourselves of the due use and comfort of that estate which God hath given us.
A.
Place in the Decalogue
1.
The creation ordinance of labor‑property,
following those of worship‑Sabbath and marriage‑family.
2.
Relations among these:
a)
Normative, existential, situational
b)
Faith, love hope
c)
Pattern of responsibility
(1)
Worship is comprehensive.
(2)
Family is to be respected "unto the
Lord."
(3)
Property is a stewardship given to the
family. It represents the blessing sanction of the Fifth Commandment.
Obligation and enjoyment.
B.
Property
1.
Stewardship
a.
God is the ultimate owner of all things
(Ex. 19:5, Psm. 24:1, 50:10, Hos. 9:3).
b.
But he gives property to human beings, to
administer in his name (Gen. 1:28-30, 1 Sam. 2:7, Job 1:21, Psm. 8:6, 115:16).
c.
So we are pilgrims on the earth, Lev.
25:23.
d.
So land in Israel cannot be sold in
perpetuity, Lev. 25:10-55.
2.
Private Property
a.
We own property, not in relation to God,
but in relation to other people (Gen. 23:3-8, 1 Kings 21:3-6, Acts 4:4, 12:12,
16:14-15, 21:8). The land is Israel's (Ex. 32:13), but ultimately God's (Hos.
9:3).
b.
Not sinful to be wealthy: Luke 8:3, 1
Cor. 1:26, 1 Tim. 6:17, Jas. 2:2.
(i)
Wealth is a blessing from the Lord, Prov.
10:4, 32.
(ii)
Great saints were sometimes wealthy:
Abraham, David. None is rebuked for his wealth as such; rather, their wealth is
a good gift of God.
(iii)
Not wrong to desire material things (Mark
10:29-30), but we shouldn't be preoccupied with that desire (Matt. 6:19-20, 1
Tim. 6:7).
(iv)
Israel commanded to feast before the
Lord, Deut. 12:6-7, 17-19, 14:22-23, Job 1 (though Job is generous, 31:16-17).
(v)
Jesus
(a)
attended a wedding feast, supplied
additional wine (John 2),
(b)
ate with the wealthy, Luke 7:36-50,
11:37, 14:1, 12, Mark 14:7.
(c)
Praised Mary's extravagant homage, John
12:7-8, against Judas's rhetoric of compassion.
(vi)
God has given us all things richly to
enjoy, 1 Tim. 6:17.
c.
But there are spiritual dangers in both
wealth and poverty. The best state is contentment with whatever the Lord
supplies. Prov. 30:8, 1 Tim. 6:8-10.
d.
We should be willing to lose our material
goods for God's purposes (Matt. 19:16-29, 1 Cor. 7:29-31).
e.
We are accountable to God for our use of
wealth, Matt. 25:14-31.
f.
God expects us to use our resources
compassionately, Acts 2:44-45, 32-37, Eph. 4:28.
C.
Work
1.
Work ethic necessitated by cultural mandate,
Gen. 1:28-30.
2.
After the fall, toilsome, Gen. 3:17-19,
Psm. 90:10.
3.
Work, nevertheless, continues to be
necessary and beneficial, Deut. 16:15, 1 Thess. 4:11-12.
a)
Vs. laziness, Prov. 6:6-11, 12:24.
b)
Work as alternative to theft, Eph. 4:28.
c)
No work, no food, 2 Thess. 3:10.
4. Obligation to
increase resources committed to us, Matt. 25:24-30.
D.
Stealing
1.
"Property rights" are human
rights. To take one's possessions is to take his inheritance, to attack his
dignity, his freedom.
2.
In biblical law, the penalty for theft is
restitution. Where restitution cannot be made, slavery. See Fifth Commandment
under "punishment."
3.
Range of application
a)
Kidnapping, 1 Tim. 1:10. A capital crime,
Ex. 21:16, Deut. 24:7.
b)
Swindling, Jer. 22:13-17, Amos 8:4-6,
Hab. 2:9-12.
c)
Stealing from widows, orphans especially
heinous, Matt. 23:14.
d)
Defrauding employees, James 5:4.
e)
Land theft, Isa. 5:8.
f)
Unjust weights, Lev. 19:35, Deut. 25:15.
g)
Misleading someone for economic gain,
Prov. 20:14.
h)
General oppression of the poor, James
2:6.
4.
"Broader" applications:
a)
Robbing God of tithes and offerings,
Malachi 3:812, Joshua 7:11.
b)
Stealing affection, II Samuel 15:6
c)
False shepherds as thieves and robbers,
John l0:lff
d)
Lack of punctuality (stealing time)
e)
Stealing honor (plagiarism, gossip)
f)
Failure to meet any obligation (stealing
as a "perspective" on all sin)
5.
May we steal to keep from starving? Prov.
6:30-31: not as serious a sin as others, but restitution should be made.
E.
Economic Systems
1.
Socialism no biblical warrant (f earlier
discussion of Marx, Part I).
a)
O.T.
(1)
Government in Israel was limited,
supported only by the half‑shekel head‑tax and the tribute of
foreign nations (including spoils of war. No income tax, property tax, sales
tax. Thus government simply did not have the resources to "manage" the nation's
economy.
(2)
Government's assigned functions are
limited to defense and the carrying out of the judicial penalties.
(3)
Private property is affirmed and
protected by the law [above].
(4)
Care of the poor is done by family,
church and individuals [below].
(5)
Education is the responsibility of the
family, primarily. Education in specialized fields is carried on by the
institutions that function in those fields. Hence the Levites are involved in
teaching religion, farmers in teaching farming, the state in teaching
statecraft, etc. "Apprenticeship model." Surely there is no place for a state
monopoly on education as we see developing today.
(6)
Government‑induced inflation,
economic controls, eminent domain, inheritance tax, other unjust taxation, fit
the biblical definition of theft.
b)
N.T.
(1)
N.T. repeats the O.T. prohibition of
stealing, work‑ethic: Ephesians 4:28, I Thessalonians 4:11f., II
Thessalonians 3:8‑15.
(2)
The "massive sharing" of Acts 4:32-5:11.
(a)
Strictly voluntary, therefore
non-socialistic: 5:4.
(b)
It had nothing to do with government.
(c)
Most likely, an emergency situation in
view.
(i)
Large numbers of new believers, immature.
(ii)
Persecution.
(iii)
Displacement from homes.
(iv)
Famine?
(d)
This pattern not repeated elsewhere in
the N.T.
(e)
A model for us? Yes, in the sense that we
ought to be willing to respond as readily as they in the situation of need.
c)
More general considerations
(1)
Move toward socialism in modern times
represents a turning away from God, regarding the state as Lord and Savior.
(Rushdoony).
(2)
Socialism has never been economically
successful. "Planning" is best done by all the people, not an elite.
(3)
Socialism always tends toward
totalitarianism. You cannot have a truly "planned" economy unless everything
is controlled.
(4)
Socialism tends toward war and world
conquest: A state cannot have full control of its own economy. Thus socialism
presupposes a divine state: omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent.
(5)
Is socialism "compassionate?" Many
compassionate people misguidedly become socialists. However:
(a)
Socialist states are not compassionate
with their own resources; rather they seek to maximize their own possessions
and power. They are "compassionate" only with other people's money, which they
take away by force.
(b)
Some short‑term gains in equity may
result from socialism.
(i)
Often at an enormous price: mass murders
in Russia and China.
(ii)
Claims to advances in the condition of
the poor must be taken with a grain of salt. Cuba is now highly literate; but
it was the most literate Latin‑American nation before Castro, and there
is no proof that his policies created the gains.
(iii)
In the long run, socialist nations
survive only through the generosity of the free world.
(c)
In fact, socialism's appeal is entirely
selfish: people wanting more for themselves. Its philosophical background is
economic determinism.
(d)
Capitalism, though often criticized (and
praised!) for its appeal to self‑interest, also has altruistic elements
(George Gilder, Wealth and Poverty).
An entrepreneur is one who seeks to meet a need in society, and/or to
satisfy desires of other people.
2.
Scriptural limits on free enterprise:
Biblical economics is not socialist, nor is it laissez‑faire in the sense of granting us autonomy in the use
of wealth.
a)
Stewardship: God is the primary owner of
all wealth.
b)
Laws governing economics, treatment of
the poor (below). Probably these would have tended to lessen the gap between
rich and poor.
c)
Biblical teachings about the proper
attitude toward wealth.
d)
"Just price," or "what the market will
bear?"
(1)
Usually we determine the latter by the
former. What other measure is there?
(2)
But is it just to take windfall profits
in market distortions, e.g. from disaster victims?
F.
Tithing, Taxation
1.
For description of the several kinds of
biblical tithes, see Rushdoony‑, Institutes
of Biblical Law.
2.
Tithes are on income, not wealth.
3.
Tithes are on agricultural production,
not general income
a)
This fact suggests the need for some
adjustment in a non‑agricultural society.
b)
It also suggests a connection between the
tithe principle and Israel's unique stewardship over the land of promise.
4.
Still, it is helpful to have a general
idea of what God wants us to give for the needs of the church‑organization.
5.
The N.T. principle: free‑will
offering, from the heart. But can we claim to be giving freely, without
covetousness, if we give even less than the O.T. people of God?
6.
Purposes of the tithe:
a.
To the Levites, who have no material
inheritance, but have responsibilities in teaching, leading worship, Num.
18:21.
b.
They also tithe to the Lord, Num. 18:28,
particularly to the priesthood.
c.
Also, the stranger, fatherless, and
widows are to benefit, Deut. 26:12-13.
7.
Very little money authorized in taxes for
government purposes. The "poll tax" (Exodus 30:11‑16) was a half‑shekel
of silver, the same for all. No land tax, income tax, sales tax, inheritance
tax. Limited government. But of course government always takes what it wants.
G.
Usury, Exodus 22:25‑27,
Leviticus 25:35‑38, Deuteronomy 23:19f, Luke 6:34f.
1.
Interest on commercial loans is
legitimate, Luke 19:23, Matthew 25:27.
2.
Interest‑free loans are mandated
for charitable purposes.
3.
In my view, this legislation presupposes
an inflation free society. Thus the "general equity" of these laws would permit
the taking of sufficient interest to keep pace with inflation.
4.
Compassionate lending:
a)
The borrower gets his cloak back so he
can keep warm, Ex. 22:26-27.
b)
Don't take a person's means of livelihood as
collateral, Deut. 24:6.
H.
Wealth and Poverty; World Hunger
(Sider vs. Chilton)
1.
The Current Problem (situational
perspective)
a)
Statistics
(1)
Inequalities
(a)
6% of the people use 33% of the resources
(b)
1/3 of the world's population has annual
income of under $100 (vs. $5600 in the US ‑ 1976).
(c)
Problems with these statistics.
(i)
Population estimates difficult
(ii)
May not take some things into account.
(a)
Barter
(b)
Communal labor (help from neighbors,
etc.)
(c)
Underground economy
(d)
Psychic income (How rich do you feel?)
(e)
Relative self‑sufficiency (through
hunting, fishing, gathering, gardening)
(f)
Different need levels in different
locations (heat, clothing, taxes, etc.)
(g)
Government social services
(h)
Different kinds of "consumption"
(industrial vs. private, defense spending, etc.)
(iii)
Scripture does not mandate absolute equality
(see below).
(2)
Hunger
(a)
460 million not getting enough calories
to live ('76)
(b)
½ billion not getting enough protein.
(c)
Problems
(i)
Margins for error
(ii)
Some may have a poor diet simply because
of ignorance, or because of a free decision to spend their resources on
something else.
(d)
Still, these statistics are alarming.
Scripture doesn't mandate "equality," but does call us to feed the hungry, to
have compassion on real need.
b)
Possible Causes
(1)
Lack of natural resources
(a)
Natural resources are unevenly
distributed.
(b)
But some nations, relatively poor in
natural resources, have flourishing economies: Japan, Taiwan, Germany. (These
import nearly all their oil.)
(c)
Sider himself says that the nations of
the third world have much to offer the rest of us, but are held down by unjust
economic structures.
(2)
Population growth
(a)
Striking statistics here; previously
thought to be a crucial "cause."
(b)
Lately, though, calls for population
control have been attacked as racist.
(c)
Actually, richer countries are often most
densely populated (Sider, 53).
(d)
Poor countries can cut population growth
quickly as education, health services improve (Sider).
(e)
Chilton: population is an advantage when
the people are productive; hence biblical encouragement to large covenant
families.
(3)
Consumption by the Rich
(a)
Argument: US use of beef pushes up price
of grain, harms the poor.
(b)
Response
(i)
In general, it is not the case that
wealth causes poverty. If it were, then why doesn't US wealth cause poverty in
Japan?
(ii)
Sider admits (204f) that even if America
abstained from beef, this would make little difference. It would simply result
in less production of grain or larger surpluses.
(iii)
Certainly if many people ate more simply,
that would help some ‑ if they gave the money saved to relief programs.
But this raises the question of how much one ought to give away. (See "Tithing"
above, also discussion below.)
(iv)
Profit‑Seeking
(a)
Argument: American companies make
enormous profits from cheap third-world products and labor
(b)
Mavrodes: what are the alternatives?
(i)
Paying higher wages would result in
higher prices which the third world, among others, would have to pay.
(ii)
Providing goods at lower costs to the
third world would discourage local production, create a situation of permanent
dependence.
(iii)
If American business stayed out of the
third world, the result would be greater unemployment.
(iv)
Sider's suggestion: food for work.
If
the work is useful work, they can earn their food.
If
it is not, then we ought not to encourage it.
(v)
Government Actions: tariff policies,
commodity agreements which often have bad effects on the poor.
(a)
Chilton: This is socialism; eliminate
(b)
Frame: Yes, but as long as we have these
things, we ought to try to make them more just. (Theonomy is weak in providing interim
solutions ‑ suggestions on improving society short of total
reconstruction.) "Negative income tax."
(vi)
Fraud, bribery
(a)
Should seek to avoid this.
(b)
But is probably has little impact on the
total picture
(c)
Vs. limited liability corporations in
which no one is answerable (Hebden-Taylor)
(vii) Religion
(a)
India's sacred cows eat enough grain to
feed 1,200,000 people.
(b)
Work‑ethic, faith in the future.
Galbraith: The main problem in poor nations is the accommodation to
poverty, the perception of the people that nothing can be done. Adjustment to
welfare‑states
2.
Biblical Principles
a)
God and the Poor: Is God "on their side?"
(1)
Some rich favored by God (Abraham, David)
(2)
Wealth is a covenant blessing.
(3)
God forbids favoritism, either to
poor or to rich, Exodus 23:3, Leviticus 19:15.
(4)
Still, the poor are often oppressed in
this sinful world.
(5)
God will vindicate the believing
poor who are oppressed.
b)
Private property
(1)
Scripture affirms this.
(a)
Inheritance, possession
(b)
Implicit in eighth commandment
(2)
Sider also affirms this (113f, 100, 209),
but Chilton doesn't seem to believe him
(3)
But Scripture does not endorse laissez faire. We do not have the right
to do anything we like with our property.
(a)
Stewardship
(b)
Laws governing economics, treatment of
the poor.
(c)
Chilton, too, opposes "anarchic,"
"antinomian" or "autonomous" capitalism (6, 181).
c)
Attitude toward wealth
(1)
Possessions not inherently evil (Sider,
125ff; Chilton thinks he doesn't really mean it, 895.)
(2)
Wealth is a blessing [above, a]
(3)
We ought not to set our heart on riches.
(4)
Be prudent, plan; but don't be "anxious."
(5)
Be generous. [See d, below].
d)
Individual use of wealth
(1)
0. T. Poor Laws
(a)
Principle of family inheritance not
compromised by taxations, eminent domain.
(b)
Interest‑free loans [D, above],
Deut. 15:8, 11.
(c)
Gleaning, Ex. 23:11, Lev. 19:10, 23:22.
(d)
Loans remitted in Sabbatical year
(e)
Sale of land remitted in Jubilee
(f)
Household apprenticeship [See "slavery"
under V. Biblical slavery was a way of (among other things) helping financial
incompetents to develop the ability to support themselves as free persons.]
(g)
Tithes: Levites provided educational,
diaconal services. Deuteronomy 14:27‑29.
(h)
Instruction about wisdom in spending.
(i)
Prohibition of any favoritism on economic
grounds, bribery in administration of justice [above, a]
(j)
"There should be no poor among you"
(Deut. 15:4-5) but there will be (Deut. 15:11, John 12:8).
(k)
Present relevance:
(i)
Jubilee probably cannot be reinstituted,
since it was dependent upon God's original parceling out of the promised land.
The church today does not have the responsibility to parcel out land.
(ii)
For interest‑free loans, see
"Usury," above.
(iii)
Much remains that ought to be imitated
today.
(iv)
As with O.T. Israel, the church can
provide a "model" of responsibility to love. Inner‑city communities of
Christians.
(2)
N.T. "Massive Sharing," Acts 2:44f,
4:32-5:11.
(a)
Not forced (5:4), but spontaneous.
(b)
No support here for government‑imposed
economic control.
(c)
Perhaps related to special economic
problems.
(i)
New believers being fired from jobs,
persecuted.
(ii)
Preparation for the disaster of A.D. 70.
(d)
Still, their openness, willingness to
share at great sacrifice, is a model for us today.
(3)
Inheritance: Still, Scripture says that
supporting one's family and leaving them an inheritance is a worthy use of
one's resources, Proverbs22.
(4)
Dominion: We ought not to feel guilty
about enjoying the fruits of our labors, a blessing of God.
(a)
If no one were rich, there would be no
money available for investment, which would harm everybody.
(b)
Consumer spending does contribute to the
economy.
(c)
Consumer spending ( a nice house, car,
etc.) is a way to invest, to protect one's resources so as to pass along a
larger inheritance.
(5)
"Where do I draw the line?" Spiritual
discernment needed. Do not pass by some one who is dying by the road!
e)
Principle of Selective Benevolence (cf.
II)
(1)
"Lifeboat ethics" of Garrett Hardin,
"triage": Help only those who will benefit from help, abandon the rest.
(2)
No one has past the point where all help
is useless.
(3)
Still, we ought not to feel guilty when
we find that we can't help everyone. Our resources are limited.
f)
The Goal
(1)
"Equality" in II Corinthians 8:13‑15.
Not absolute equality, but meeting of needs. No Christian ought to go without
food, shelter.
(2)
Serious implementation of the diaconate
could certainly wipe out hunger among Christians, Cf. Mormons.
(3)
The love shown in the Christian community
and the success of that love in relieving basic needs could serve as a powerful
witness to the world.
I.
Mercy Ministry
1.
Do good to all, especially of the
household of faith, Gal. 6:10.
2.
That is, our first responsibility is to
our own families, 1 Tim. 5:4-10, then to the poor of the church, 5:3, then to
any needy person who comes across our path, Luke 10:30-37.
3.
Emperor Julian the Apostate: The Christians
fed their own poor, and then they fed ours.
4.
When we have time only for a handout,
give food, bus tickets, etc., rather than cash.
5.
If a longer term relationship is
possible, offer to a poor person an opportunity to change his life.
a)
Through the gospel.
b)
Discipleship, including work experience.
c)
Counseling, including employment and
financial.
J.
Gambling
1.
Arguments against
a)
Can be linked to worship of fate, chance.
b)
Can be psychologically addictive.
c)
Can involve covetousness.
d)
Can be a waste of time and money, a cause
of poverty.
e)
Can be thought of as a substitute for
useful work.
f)
Even where legal, often controlled by
organized crime, etc.
2.
Reply: Although all of these things can
be linked with gambling, I don't think that gambling necessarily involves any of
them. One might regard it simply as a game, spending no more on it than upon
any other amusement. One can avoid organized crime by restricting oneself to
private football pools or Church Bingo games. But promoting gambling in the
public square does more harm than good.
IX.
The Ninth Commandment:
"Thou shard not bear false witness against thy neighbor." (Exodus: sheqer, falsehood; Deuteronomy: shaw vanity [cf. III])
Q144: What are the duties required in the ninth
commandment?
A144: The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man, and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own; appearing and standing for the truth; and from the heart, sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice, and in all other things whatsoever; a charitable esteem of our neighbors; loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name; sorrowing for, and covering of their infirmities; freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces, defending their innocency; a ready receiving of a good report, and unwillingness to admit of an evil report, concerning them; discouraging talebearers, flatterers, and slanderers; love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requireth; keeping of lawful promises; studying and practicing of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report.
Q145: What are the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment?
A145: The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbors, as well as our own, especially in public judicature; giving false evidence, suborning false witnesses, wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause, outfacing and overbearing the truth; passing unjust sentence, calling evil good, and good evil; rewarding the wicked according to the work of the righteous, and the righteous according to the work of the wicked; forgery, concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause, and holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof from ourselves, or complaint to others; speaking the truth unseasonably, or maliciously to a wrong end, or perverting it to a wrong meaning, or in doubtful and equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of truth or justice; speaking untruth, lying, slandering, backbiting, detracting, tale bearing, whispering, scoffing, reviling, rash, harsh, and partial censuring; misconstructing intentions, words, and actions; flattering, vainglorious boasting, thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others; denying the gifts and graces of God; aggravating smaller faults; hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins, when called to a free confession; unnecessary discovering of infirmities; raising false rumors, receiving and countenancing evil reports, and stopping our ears against just defense; evil suspicion; envying or grieving at the deserved credit of any, endeavoring or desiring to impair it, rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy; scornful contempt, fond admiration; breach of lawful promises; neglecting such things as are of good report, and practicing, or not avoiding ourselves, or not hindering: What we can in others, such things as procure an ill name.
A.
Theological Background
1.
Legal witness is the focal meaning. Note
connection with property, Leviticus 6:1‑7.
a.
Legal witnesses held sway over life and
death, 1 Kings 21:13, Matt. 26:60-61, Acts 7:13-14. Witness must cast first
stone, Deeut. 17:7.
b.
One witness insufficient for death
penalty, Deut. 17:6, 19:15.
c.
A witness found to be false receives the
punishment the accused would have received, Deut. 19:16-19.
2.
Similarly, vs partial judges, Lev. 19:15,
Ex. 23:1-3. Vs. bribes, Ex. 18:21, Deut. 16:18-20.
3.
The commandment also deals with lying
more generally.
a)
Note relation to other commandments in
Hosea 4:2, Proverbs 6:19.
b)
General biblical polemic against lies,
Psalm. 31:18, 63:11, 101:7, 119:29, 163, Proverbs 6:17, 12:22, 13:5, 19:5, 9,
Ephesians 4:25, I John 2:21, Revelation 21:27, 22:15.
c)
Satan as father of lies, John 8:44.
d)
Sinners dominated by lies, Rom. 1:25,
3:8-18, 2 Cor. 4:2-4, 2 Thess. 2:9-12.
e)
False prophecy, Deut. 13:1-18.
4.
Other verbal ways of harming one's
neighbor
a)
Gossip, slander, Psm. 15:3, Prov. 11:13,
16:28, 20:19, 25:23, 26:20, Rom. 1:29, 30, 2 Cor. 12:20, Gal. 5:19-20, 1 Tim.
5:13, 3 John 10, Jude 9 (!) How we love it: Prov. 18:8, 26:22!
b)
Judging rashly, 2 Sam. 16:4, 19:24-28,
John 9:2, Matt. 7:1-3.
c)
Twisting someone's words, Matt. 26:61,
John 2:19.
d)
Failing to mind your own business, 1
Thess. 4:11.
e)
Putting the worst construction on
someone's words or actions. We have the responsibility to give one another the
benefit of the doubt; "innocent until proved guilty." No accusation unless
witnesses.
5.
The power of the tongue for evil, Jas.
3:2-10, Rom. 3:10ff. Neighbor
a)
Fellow Israelite, even when enemy, Ex.
23:4-5, Prov. 24:1, 7, 25:21.
b)
NT
(1)
In church, first of all: Rom. 15:2, James
4:12, Eph. 4:25.
(2)
But also those outside, Luke 10:25-37,
Rom. 13:8-9, Tit. 3:4.
6.
Broader perspectives: Witness is not only
something we do (with the lips); it is something we are, Isaiah 43, Acts 1:8,
Rev. 3:14, John 18:37. Any sin, therefore, is a "false witness."
B.
Are Lies Ever Justifiable?
1.
"Jocular" lies: jokes and fictitious
stories not wrong. There are some in Scripture. But we should avoid those that
really hurt somebody, Prov. 26:12-13.
2.
"Polite" lies: petty flatteries required
by ettiquette.
a)
"Sincerely yours" "I've had enough,
thanks."
b)
Such expressions are not normally
understood literally, but are conventional means of maintaining civility in
place of brutal honesty.
c)
These expressions can be abused; some
flattery is destructive.
d)
Some forms of language misunderstood:
creedal subscription often taken as merely formal.
3.
"Necessary" lies: for my neighbor's benefit. Hiding Jews from Nazis.
a)
Scripture examples:
(1)
Ex. 1:15-21, the Israelite midwives in
Egypt.
(2)
Joshua 2:4-6, Heb. 11:31, James 2:25,
Rahab.
(3)
Josh 8:3-8, ambush at Ai, at God's
direction.
(4)
Judg. 4:18-21, 5:24-27, Jael and Sisera.
(5)
1 Sam. 16:1-5: Samuel misleads Saul as to
the reason for his mission.
(6)
1 Sam. 19:12-17: Michal deceives her
father's troops.
(7)
1 Sam. 20:6: David's counsel to Jonathan.
(8)
1 Sam. 21:13: David feigns madness.
(9)
2 Sam. 5:22-25: another military deceit.
(10) 2
Sam. 15:34, Hushai counseled to lie to Absalom.
(11) 2
Sam. 17:19-20,women deceive Absalom's men.
(12) 2
Kings 16:14-20, Elisha misleads the Syrian troops.
(13) Jer.
38:24-28, Jeremiah lies to the princes.
(14) Luke
24:28, Jesus acts as if he intends to go further.
b)
Augustine, John Murray
(1)
Augustine: no lie is of the truth (1 John
2:21, Psm. 5:6), so never lie.
(2)
Murray: Deceit is never justified. The
midwives were commended, not for deceiving, but for preserving life. God
authorized Samuel to withold the truth, not to deceive.
c)
Hodge: Truth is required only where there
is a "virtual promise."
(1)
Difficult to define "virtual promise" or
to identify one.
(2)
This approach puts the burden of proof on
those who would show, in some situation, that truth is required. In my view,
Scripture teaches the opposite: the burden of proof is on those who would show
that lying is permitted.
d)
Douma, Frame
(1)
Rahab wouldn't be praised for her faith
in total abstraction from the methods she used to accomplish the result. How
else could the spies have been "sent out another way" (James 2:25)?
(2)
Murray's distinction between deceiving
and withholding truth is legitimate. But when we withhold truth (or even state
it) in such a way as knowingly to create a false impression in the mind of
another, that is surely a form of deceit. To press Murray's distinction in such
a case is merely to play with words.
(a)
"Athanasius is nor far away."
(b)
Hans Busscher: "Is Hans Busscher sitting among you?"
(3)
Remaining silent is usually not a remedy.
(4)
One must simply admit that Scripture
admits exceptions to the general meaning of the commandment.
(a)
like the eating of consecrated bread
(Lev. 24:9, 1 Sam. 21:3-6, Matt. 12:5),
(b)
disobeying authorities when they require
sin.
(c)
Capital punishment and war as exceptions
to VI.
(5)
In such situations, there is such a
breakdown in language that it is difficult, even if you try, to speak
truth to your enemy.
(a)
Would the Nazis believe you if you
said you were hiding Jews in the basement? Most likely they would suspect a
trick.
(b)
There are certain specific conventions
which are needed in wartime to communicate truth. E.g., the raising of a white
flag: in "wartime ethics" it is considered dastardly for one to carry a white
flag to the enemy and then open fire with a concealed weapon. Yet even those
conventions are not always observed.
(c)
Thus the scriptural justification of
deceit in wartime is both a divine norm and a recognition of a de facto
breakdown in communication.
(6)
We should be conservative with this
principle. It does not justify, for example, lying to a patient about terminal
disease.
(7)
God sometimes announces actions that he
does not ultimately intend to carry out, in order to motivate his people to
prayer and repentance. Cf. Jesus in Luke 24:28. These are not deceptions, for
it is understood in Scripture that God's announcements are often conditional
(Jer. 18:6-10).
X.
The Tenth Commandment:
"Thou shalt not covet." (Exodus: chamad;
Deut.: avah)
Q147: What are the duties required in the tenth
commandment?
A147:
The duties required in the tenth commandment are, such a full
contentment with our own condition, and such a charitable frame of the whole
soul toward our neighbor, as that all our inward motions and affections
touching him, tend unto, and further all that good which is his.
Q148:
What are the sins forbidden in the tenth commandment?
A148:
The sins forbidden in the tenth commandment are, discontentment with our
own estate; envying and grieving at the good of our neighbor, together with all
inordinate motions and affections to anything that is his.
A.
Inward origin of all sin: Here the
Decalogue emphasizes the point often made elsewhere in Scripture that God is
concerned not only with outward acts, but with inward attitudes as well ("the
existential perspective.") All sin begins with evil desire. Thus God calls us
to guard the thought‑life.
B.
Traditional distinctions
1.
Spontaneous desire (catches you off
guard)
2.
Nursing that desire (tittilatio)
3.
Making a plan to achieve it (involvement
of the will)
4.
Accomplishing your desire (the deed).
5.
Roman Catholic ethics: 1 is not sinful,
2-4 are.
6.
Calvin:
a)
Other commandments deal with 3-4; this
deals with 1-2.
b)
1-2 as sinful as 3-4, in God's sight. The
depth of depravity.
7.
Heidelberg Catechism: vs. "least
inclination or thought."
C.
Douma:
1.
Literal thrust of the commandment is
between the disposition (B, 2) and the deed (B, 4).
2.
To covet is to "set your desire on"
something, so that you "can't keep your hands off it."
a)
Eve in the garden, Gen. 3:6.
b)
Israel wanted to go back to Egypt, Ex.
16:3.
c)
Achan in Josh. 7:21.
d)
The rich man in Nathan's parable, 2 Sam.
12:1-2.
e)
Ex. 34:24, Deut. 7:25, Mic. 2:2.
3.
So not merely private. Cf. disruption in society caused by conspiracies,
even those that don't accomplish their goals.
4.
NT on covetousness, Luke 12:15, Gal.
5:16-26, 1 John 2:16-17.
a)
Col. 3:5, greed is idolatry.
b)
Eph. 4:19, 5:3, connected with sexual
license.
c)
2 Pet. 2:3, 14, motivates false prophets.
5.
Still, there is sin even at level B, 1.
Were we free from sin, we would not have the slightest desire for anything
evil.
a)
Imaginations, Gen. 6:5, 8:21.
b)
Secret sins, Psm. 19:12, 90:8, 139:23-24,
Jer. 17:9.
c)
Covetous disposition- with no specific
object mentioned, Rom. 7:8.
6.
JF: That depends on what you mean by
desire.
a)
Not wrong to merely contemplate something
as good or desirable.
b)
Wrong to see disobedience to God as a
desirable way of achieving it.
D.
Related biblical concepts
1.
Envy: Gen. 4:7, Mark 4:19, 1 Tim. 6:9-10.
a)
A major force in contemporary culture,
especially politics. See Schlossberg, Idols
for Destruction on ressentiment,
Rushdoony, Politics of Guilt and Pity,
Schroeck, Envy.
b)
Ressentiment
(Nietzsche): not only wanting something that belongs to someone else, but
hating him, wanting to bring him down.
2.
Contentment: Psm. 78:18-19, Luke 3:14, 2
Cor. 9:8, Phil. 4:11, 1 Tim. 6:6-8, Heb. 13:5.
a)
Based on trust in God's providence.
b)
In both poverty and wealth. People of all
social conditions violate this command.
E.
Good desires (contra Buddhism)
1.
Not wrong to desire food (Matt. 4:2),
drink (John 19:28-29), sleep (Luke 8:23), sex (Gen. 2:22-23, Song of Songs),
children (Gen. 30:22-23, 1 Sam. 1:17, Psm. 127:3-5), improved position (Prov.
24:27).
2.
The blessings of God include material
provision, and we should desire those (Mark 10:29-31). The covenant promises of
land, seed, long life, prosperity.
3.
Thirst for God himself, Psm. 42:1-2,
73:25, Phil. 2:23.
4. Think on these things, Phil. 4:8.
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on YouTube
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Instagram
Commitment to Transparency