Be Careful Who You Drink With
One day recently I was shooting the breeze with some friends at my favourite pub, The Boar’s Head Tavern, when the subject of the American War Between the States was raised. We were discussing, (well, we were actually arguing over), the causes of the war when I posed this intentionally provocative question:
“Can
anyone demonstrate according to scripture that slavery is immoral?”
From the responses of the guys, you would have thought I had plopped a fresh cow patty onto the table. They started throwing things and taunting me. Beer was spilled, epithets were tossed, furniture was overturned. A couple of folks took a swing at me and it was starting to get very ugly. But tellingly, no one was able to demonstrate scripturally that slavery was immoral. No one, that is, until the proprietor of the pub, Michael, stepped into the fray and quieted us all down with a cogent and satisfying response to my question.
That’s why I hang out at his pub. Good beer, good conversation, and a wise proprietor.
Later that evening, after the combatants had dispersed, Michael quietly suggested that I write down my thoughts on the Law of God. Well, actually he asked me to give my views on theonomy. I had to look it up: theonomy means Law of God. I agreed, believing that I could whip out a little thesis overnight. That’s when the trouble really started.
The issue of the Law of God in the life of the believer is controversial if nothing else. I know that my own opinions and beliefs have changed dramatically as I have studied the teaching of the church over the centuries. Furthermore, I realise that whatever I commit to writing at this moment may in fact be used against me in later years. Therefore, it is with no small degree of fear and trembling that I submit my views here.
Any western believer who studies the history of the Reformation should be humbled - truly, we stand upon the shoulders of giants. These men studied the scriptures as if they were the very bread of life, (what a thought!), and we would do well to heed their instruction and glean from their wisdom.
Michael, this one is for you and all the rowdies at The
Boar’s Head.
Jack Heald
The Three Functions of the Law
The Teaching Function of the Law
The Theological Function of the Law
Conclusion – Not Quite What We Thought
The Reformation of the 16th century lit a fire that burns still today. Or perhaps better, the Reformers re-kindled a fire that had nearly died – the authority of scripture. The Roman Church had subordinated the authority of scripture to the authority of the church. The Reformation reversed that role.
In a nutshell, the Reformers taught that the Law of God serves three distinct functions, theological, didactic and civil.
First, the Law is didactic - it teaches the
believer God's will for holy living.
FirstSecond,
the theological function of the Law reveals our sin and drives us to despair of
our own inability to merit salvation. As we realize our utter inability to meet
God’s righteous commands, we are driven to seek the Savior.
Second, the Law is didactic - it teaches the
believer God's will for holy living.
Third, the Law has a civil function: it defines the limits of morality and as such, illumines God’s design for society. As such, this use of the law is not limited to believers, but in fact applies to the whole culture.
Being a father is an experience constantly packed with surprises for me. One of my more memorable surprises was the discovery that my children did not share my desires for a serene and peaceful home. In fact, concepts like “serene” and "peaceful” had absolutely no meaning for my children. For that matter, “serene” and “peaceful” are almost antithetical to the nature of little children, especially boys. And since I had four children, two boys and two girls, (within 6 1/2 years no less), I had to find a way resolve this communication gap; I had to find a way to express my desires to my children in a language they could grasp. I wanted them to understand my values, accept those values as their own, and regulate their behaviour accordingly.
I did a lot of thinking about how to communicate with my kids so that we could live in agreement. Trying to communicate adult values to a child is difficult, so I identified some key elements that my teaching must always include if my children were to have any hope of understanding me.
My children needed me to give simple instructions in words they could understand. Just because I understand what I want from them doesn’t mean that they do. I have to use words they understand.
My words had to be unambiguous so that the possibility of multiple definitions was reduced or eliminated. We all know people who will hear our words but take a completely different meaning from those words than we intended. I had to eliminate that possibility in my communication with my children. If I said STOP, they had to know I meant STOP!
My instructions had to be concise so they could remember them. Children have a notoriously short attention span when it comes to remembering things that are not important to them. (I guess adults share the same problem.) If the rule was too long or too complex, they would never remember it.
Finally, the nature of the rule had to be such that they could use it to judge themselves. When I pointed out to them how they had broken my rule, they needed to be able to recognise for themselves that they were indeed guilty of a violation. If children cannot see for themselves that they are guilty, then they will never respect the Rule and will gradually lose respect for the Rule Giver.
I had observed that when my children got rowdy in the house, the peace in our home was usually shattered. When they started to shout, shriek or scream, as little ones are prone to do, the serenity of the home would evaporate. And whenever they started running through the house, shouting and rowdiness inevitably followed close behind. I determined, therefore, that the behaviour I wanted to regulate was characterized by shouting, rowdiness and running and so I formulated a single rule for my children that fulfilled all the requirements for behaviour in the house. My simple, concise, unambiguous rule was:
Calm, quiet and slow.
You can ask my children today, (they are now 19, 17, 15 & 12), "what was the rule of your house?” and they will all remember, "Calm, quiet and slow".
When I told my children that I wanted my house to be peaceful, they would smile and nod their heads, and enthusiastically say, “Okay, Poppa!” Then within moments they would be running, shouting, wrestling and fighting again. They didn’t really understand me. But once I had taught them the command “Calm, Quiet and Slow”, I could always bring them back to that command when their behaviour got out of line. Maybe they didn’t really understand what I meant when I said I wanted a house characterized by “peace” and “serenity”, but as they gradually began conforming to my command that they be Calm, Quiet and Slow, they began to get an idea of what a peaceful, serene house felt like.
So what has this to do with the Law of God?
Just as my children could begin to understand my will by
reflecting on and conforming to the command “Calm, Quiet and Slow”, so we can
begin to better understand the will of our Creator as we meditate on the Law
and attempt to conform to it. He has made it simple, concise and unambiguous.
Jesus summed it up “all the law and prophets” in just
two commands. If we have any confusion about those two, we can dig a little
deeper by meditating on the Ten Commandments, (an exercise I recommend and will
illustrate later on). If we have any confusion about those ten, we have all of
scripture to instruct us!
Jesus explained in the Sermon on the Mount that the jurisdiction of the law was not limited to the realm of behaviour but extended as well into the realm of the “thoughts and intents of the heart”. He explained to His listeners that the man who looks on a woman with lust in his heart is every bit as guilty of violating God’s Law as the most reprobate adulterer. If we take that simple revelation at face value, we can examine our whole lives in the same light – residents of the Kingdom of God are to be pure not only in behaviour but in thought and intent as well.
A proper understanding of God’s Law requires that we
understand what the Law does not do. Will meditating on God’s Law help
us begin to understand the kind of “home” God wants to have? Yes it will. But
will such meditation actually cause us to become righteous? No! A thousand
times No!
Paul spent the better part of the book of Romans talking
about the elect and their relationship to God and God’s Law. In chapter 9 he
brings
…Christ is the end of the
law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
Romans 10:4
As good as it is, the Law of God cannot save. As pure as it is, it cannot make any person moral. As just and upright as it is, it cannot reform any person and it cannot reform a culture, a society or a country. As lovely as it is, it has no power to make us lovely.
What the law does do is point out to man his need.
It reveals the fact that he is incapable of being good, unable to keep himself
pure, and unworthy of being loved by God. It points out toshows man his utter inability to merit
salvation on the basis of his behaviour, and it does this by setting the
holiness and purity of God in sharp relief against the depravity of man. For
all those who believe their sincerity, their attempts to “be good”, or their
“bank account” of good deeds vs. bad deeds will obligate God to grant them
deliverance from eternal judgment, the Law of God stands as the sole standard
by which God will judge behaviour.
If you understand nothing else about God’s Law, you should recognize that it is a bludgeon designed to beat into our thick skulls the stark reality of our own situation. We are utterly without hope.
The man who entrusts his salvation to his own ability is a fool. He is like a paratrooper depending on grades in the classroom to keep him from plummeting to a gruesome death when he leaps from the plane. No matter how firm your grasp upon the laws of physics or how eloquent your explanation of them, the only thing that will keep you from going splat on the ground is a parachute strapped to your back and deployed on time.
Now some may say that all this attention paid to the Law negates the effects of Grace, and with Paul they will warn us that when we return to the Law, we have fallen from Grace. I used to believe that way myself.
But if we use the Law as God intended – as a means of driving us to Christ – it becomes a most effective tool in our arsenal – a potent means of revealing to us the depths of our need. It truly is that sword of the spirit that exposes the deepest thoughts and intents of our heart.
Jesus told His listeners that all the Law and Prophets
were summed up in two commands: “Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and
strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.” This seems pretty
straightforward, but I suspect most people understand those words no better
than my little children understood my desires for a peaceful, serene home.
With that in mind, the Law of God as encapsulated in the Ten Commandments serves the same function in our world as my “Calm, Quiet & Slow” rule served in our home. It is by no means the full and complete revelation of God’s will for His “house”, but it is a concise, simple and unambiguous expression of the way He designed us to operate.
The universe is endlessly fascinating to me. I ravenously
devour reports of the latest findings in the realms of cosmology, genetics,
particle physics, biochemistry. Everywhere I look and in every scientific
discovery, I see the unmistakable marks of a design genius at work.
The universe is a marvel of precision engineering. If the
universe did not function in an orderly fashion, then the very concept of “laws
of physics” would be meaningless. If no law governed the behaviour of matter
and energy, then all would be chaos, and understanding of any sort would be
impossible. But the universe does function beautifully according to the
laws written by the Creator into the very fabric of space and time.
If galaxies, stars, planets and comets operate according to
law, if quarks, nuons and electrons operate according to law, if all the
universe we can observe with our sense is designed to operate according to law,
does it not make sense that God would express his design artistry equally well
in the area of moral behaviour? If physical laws govern the behaviour of space
and time, should we not expect that moral law would govern the behaviour of
humans?
God has a design for how people should interact just as He has a design for how particles interact. The difference is that people can choose to live lawfully or chaotically whereas particles apparently have no such choice. (Feynmann’s theories notwithstanding.)
When little children come to my house, I explain to them and
to their parents that – regardless of the rules in their house – when they are
in my house, my rules apply. And the rule of my house for little children is
Calm, Quiet and Slow. Is this unfair? Absolutely not - it’s my house! If the
children or the parents do not like it, they are welcome to leave. But part and
parcel of partaking of my hospitality is adhering to the rules of my house.
Should we expect any different in God’s house?
Many Christians who acknowledge the Law of God as
authoritative in the lives of the elect hold the paradoxical belief that God’s
Law does not apply to unbelievers. If this is true, then we must of necessity
claim that the only part of the world that actually belongs to God is the
church, and no one with an ounce of theological understanding would say that.
The scriptures make it abundantly clear that the earth
belongs to the Lord. We are all here at His will; we are all partaking of His
hospitality. (The Reformers call it “Common Grace”.) Why would we expect Him to
suspend the rules of His house? God is infinitely more patient with
misbehaviour in His house than I am in mine, but if we humans want a peaceful
and serene existence, we would do well to learn the rules of the house.
The Ten Commandments is widely recognized as an
authoritative expression of God’s rule for human morality. For that reason, I
will take The Ten Commandments as my point of departure and will use it to
illustrate how we can judge morality.
This is probably a good time to define some more terms:
In the Old Testament, Law can refer to both the Moral
Law as well as the Ceremonial/Religious Law. The Moral Law expresses God’s
character whereas the Civil/Religious law expresses, in the words of the writer
of Hebrews “types and shadows” of the reality God demonstrated through Christ.
The moral law is applicable to all people at all times, whereas the civil and
religious laws given in the Old Testament were for the people of
For
that reason, this discussion is limited to the moral aspect of the Law. The Ten Commandments is widely recognized as an
authoritative expression of God’s rule for human morality. For that reason, I
will take The Ten Commandments as my point of departure and will use it to
illustrate how we can judge morality.
When I say something is moral, I mean that it conforms to the Law of God or to a principle derived directly from that Law. God alone possesses the authority to create Law and to determine morality. Men have neither the power nor the authority to determine morality. Men cannot make Law; men can only acknowledge and enforce what God has already revealed.
This has some significant implications.
If an action violates the rule of man but does not violate the Law of God, then it is not immoral. Just because an act is illegal according to man’s rules does not mean it is immoral according to God’s Law.
Similarly, an action may violate no law of man, yet still be immoral. Consider, for example, adultery. Though it no longer violates man’s legislation, it is everywhere and all cases immoral because the Law of God prohibits it.
If we assume that the world belongs to God, and that He
never intended to relinquish authority over His own possession, then we should
be able to use God’s simple, concise and unambiguous
instructions to judge behaviour.
If you’ll recall, a discussion about slavery in the American South was the genesis of this article. My simple question: Does the authority we profess to acknowledge – the scriptures – prohibit slavery? Does it violate the Law of God?
If the Law of God is the rule for how people should interact, then we should be able to go to the scripture and find an answer to this question there. However, a cursory examination of the Old and New Testaments would seem to indicate that the answer to the question, “is slavery immoral”, is a resounding “Absolutely not!”
How can I say that? Consider:
The Ten Commandments have no prohibition against slavery. In fact, the Old Testament contains extensive instruction regarding the acquisition and treatment of slaves. That fact alone stands as a pretty strong implicit argument that slavery was at least condoned in the Old Testament. Wouldn’t you would think when God gave the Law to Moses, if ever there was a time to prohibit slavery, that would have been the time to do it? But God didn’t prohibit it. The absence of such a prohibition in the Old Testament is striking.
The New Testament also contains no explicit prohibition against slavery and in fact contains at least two instances of implicit acceptance of the practice. In Ephesians 6, Paul gives masters and slaves instructions about how to treat one another, and in Philemon, Paul instructs the owner of a runaway slave to show kindness to the slave when he returns, because the slave has become a believer under Paul’s ministry. In both these instances, Paul had ample opportunity to condemn the practice of slavery outright, but he did not do it.
I believe most of us instinctively sense that slavery is immoral, but the scripture does not seem to make that judgment. What should we do then? Will we exalt our innate sense that slavery is immoral over the authority of scripture? Or will we acknowledge that we are ignorant and foolish people and dig ever more deeply into the gold of God’s Word? If we confess to trust in the authority of the scriptures, then we must deal with issues such as this honestly and uprightly. We must rightly divide the Word of Truth.
We are concerned then with determining, according to the scriptures, whether or not slavery is immoral. We are not concerned about whether or not the practice is illegal.
We see from the brief discussion above that both the Old Testament and the New seem to give implicit approval to the practice of slavery. This would seem to imply that it is moral. How then do we support our assertion that slavery is immoral? I suggest we can do this by meditating on the Law of God, and put it to use in its civil function.
We will focus on the two stages of slavery: the acquisition stage and the ownership stage.
The commandments that most directly address the issues of acquisition are the 8th and the 10th that prohibit stealing and covetousness. For this discussion, let’s focus on the 8th commandment. Is it possible that the acquisition of slaves violates the 8th commandment?
The answer is yes – but not an unequivocal yes. To understand the difference we must understand the nature of theft. In any transaction involving two parties, if both parties agree to the terms of the transaction – trade of goods or services – then that transaction must be judged to be moral – it does not violate God’s law against theft. However, in any transaction where one party gains at the expense of the other and without the consent of the other, then we may rightly say that an immoral act has occurred – theft.
Therefore, if an individual is sold into slavery against his will then that person has had something taken from him that he did not willingly trade – his freedom. Such a circumstance is clearly theft and is therefore clearly a violation of the 8th commandment.
But not all slavery involves theft. In the Old Testament,
indentured servitude was a condition whereby a person would “sell” himself into
a fixed term of slavery – not to exceed six years – for the purpose of paying a
debt. In that instance, the “slave” willingly and freely entered into the
transaction. Although musthis
circumstances must surely have been harsh to make such a choice, nevertheless,
he was still free to choose otherwise. This indicates that a moral transaction
occurred and as such, it does not violate the 8th command.
So to declare that the acquisition of slaves violates the law of God, we must prove that at least one party in the transaction had no choice. If coercion was involved, then the Civil Law was violated.
What about the actual ownership of slaves? Is this an immoral practice? Since both the Old Testament and the New Testaments seem to implicitly condone the practice, we must be careful before we make a pronouncement that slavery is immoral based on a scriptural prohibition.
How does the Law of God and address the issues of ownership and of interpersonal relations? The 10th addresses ownership and the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th all address issues of relationships. For simplicity, let’s focus again on the 8th commandment.
I see two possible types of transactions that can occur with within the framework of what we have defined as the moral acquisition of slaves, (voluntary indentured service.) In the first type, the terms of the transaction involve negotiations over ownership of the slave’s labor. In the second type, the negotiation involves the personhood of the slave. The former transaction is moral, the latter is immoral.
In the former transaction, the slave sells the fruits of his labor, or more accurately, the slave sells the right to the ownership of his labor, a right that he is perfectly free to sell to anyone for terms agreeable to both parties. If he performs the labor, he is the rightful owner of its fruits and therefore can both legally and morally barter away that right. In this form of slavery, the slave owner does not own the person; he owns the person’s labor. As such, there are restraints on the slave owner. He is free to dispose of the slave’s labor however he wills, (within the constraints of the Law of God), but he is constrained to treat the slave himself in a law-abiding, moral fashion. In other words, with the exception of the fruits of the slave’s labor, he is obligated by the law of God to treat the slave with the same respect and honor due to a free man.
However, in the latter transaction, where the slave literally sells his person – as opposed to merely selling his labor – then he sells that which he does not own.
No man owns himself, (in spite of what we believe or have been taught). We all belong to God, at least as His creation – in the case of the damned – and at most as His adopted children in the case of the elect. We do not own ourselves, so we cannot sell ourselves. To sell that which you do not own and which you possess no delegated authority to sell is theft - a clear violation of the 8th commandment.
So in the latter case, the seller commits an immoral act by selling what he does not own, and the buyer commits an immoral act by knowingly purchasing stolen property.
So we have now eliminated all cases of slavery except that of the indentured servant. Recall that this is one who sells the fruits of his own labour but retains the rights to his own person. You should recognize that this form of “slavery” differs very little from the modern concept of contract labor.
My conclusion then is that the actual ownership of slaves is not a violation of God’s law, whereas the acquisition of a slave very well could be. For slavery to conform to God’s law, it must involve a willing participation on the part of the slave, and the terms of the slavery must be that the owner’s possession is limited to the fruits of the labour of the slave.
Had the American South practiced a form of slavery consistent with the Law of God, (more accurately referred to as indentured servitude), then we would have no right to judge the south for that practice. But they did not and we can now say with scriptural authority that slavery as practiced there was a clear violation of the law of God because:
· The slaves were not willing participants in the acquisition phase of the relationship
· The owners’ possession included not only rights to the fruits of the labour of their slaves, but rights to the person of the slaves as well.
Though many slave owners treated their slaves in an immoral manner – they committed murder, adultery, and theft, bore false witness and coveted - these acts were not intrinsic to the slavery, they were incidental to it. Slavery or no, these acts would be, at all times and all places, a violation of God’s Law.
Today, many people believe that the Law of God is strictly personal – that the commands pertain only to our individual lives, but that we should not bring our personal convictions into the public arena. That conclusion is faulty.
Engage in a little thought experiment with me.
Imagine just for a moment that believers in the US Congress chose to order their lives in the way I have described here. Suppose they meditated on God’s Law, and that such meditations had convinced them that stealing, murder and idolatry unequivocally violated the Law of God. Should their beliefs affect the types of legislation they would pass? Or should they simply check their faith at the door and ignore the commands of God as they conduct the business of being Congressmen?
Suppose Christian business owners began meditating on the character of God revealed by the fourth command – “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy” – would this meditation affect they way they conducted business? Suppose Christian doctors began meditating on the sixth commandment, or Christian book publishers began meditating on the 2nd commandment or musicians on the 8th or judges on the 10th. Suppose the so-called “latter-day prophets” began meditating on the 3rd commandment, or newspaper editors on the 9th, or welfare recipients on the 10th? Would these have an effect in society at large?
I leave that to you to decide.
We know from Romans 10 that Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness. Paul makes it clear in Galatians 3:24 that the function of the Law is to lead us to Christ. Through the Law, we recognise that we are utterly incapable of measuring up to or complying with God’s standard of perfection. This recognition makes us realize that we are justly condemned already, and our fear of that condemnation causes us to come humbly to Christ seeking mercy.
My question is this:
Is “coming to Christ” a one-time event, or is it an
ongoing process?
My experience says that I am always in need of the tutoring of the Law – not for the purpose of measuring my own righteousness, but to reveal those areas in my life where my thoughts, deeds and/or words do not glorify my Creator.
I find that meditating on the Law of God as expressed in the Ten Commandments and illuminated throughout the scriptures helps me in a multitude of ways.
1. It helps me order my beliefs about the world to be in accordance with God’s law.
For example, not only does the prohibition against theft help me know that stealing is wrong – immoral – a violation of the expression of God’s rules for His house, but it also helps me to recognize theft anywhere in the world. Any law, any government, any custom, any society, any policy that promotes, encourages or condones stealing is in fact violating God’s standards.
2. It helps me recognize my own need for the Grace of God through the sacrifice of Christ.
The prohibition against adultery
stands as a constant reminder that my mind as well as my body belongs to God.
For most men, keeping out of bed with a woman other than their wife is not terribly
difficult. But for me, and for most men, keeping out of bed with other women –
in my mind – is a constant challenge. In the “easy grace, God forgives me, it’s
under the blood” world I used to inhabit, I was never forced to confront the
fact that – in my mind – I was serial adulterer. Paul makes it clear that such
as these cannot inherit the
3. It sharpens my understanding of God; it transforms me by the miraculous effect of renewing my mind.
The Psalmist in Psalm 119 waxes rhapsodic about the Law of God. Yet many Christians seem to despise the Law of God – “it’s not for today – grace has done away with the Law”. Yet if that is true, then Psalm 119 no longer has a place in the Christian Bible. Rather than taking that approach, perhaps we could assume that the Psalm is still valid, and acknowledge that the purpose of the Law is unchanged – it serves as a tutor to point us to Christ – and is still every bit as valid and useful to the life of God’s elect as it ever was.
I personally have experienced great personal benefit from meditating on the Law of God. For example, I will mull over in my mind the 1st commandments – “I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other Gods before me”. As I ponder this, I ask myself how this applies to me. I think about what it means for God to name Himself as my Lord. I think about what God is, about what it means to have other “gods” before the one true God.
In all this meditation, I will find the Holy Spirit begins
to illuminate my soul, to point out to me areas
of my life, belief, or actions that violate this law and that must be brought
captive to the obedience of Christ. Because I know that in myself I am utterly
incapable of conforming to this command, I am forced to go to Jesus and plead
for mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. I begin to understand just
how wayward my own heart is, and how high and holy God is.
Now if we left it at that, just the Law – then we would be in dire straights indeed. But that is not where we are left. With King David we recognize that God is a God of mercy who forgives, cleanses and sanctifies.
When we see we have sin we come boldly before the throne of Grace where we have an advocate before the Father. We do not ask for indulgences so that we can continue in our sin – no! We ask for mercy on ourselves and for grace to walk in the Spirit instead of in the flesh.
The Law reveals where we fail to measure up to the Glory of God. It offers us no help, but the first step toward being fixed is recognizing where you are broken. That is the effect and purpose of the Law in the life of a Christian.
We know that Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness, and we make no attempt to justify ourselves, because we are certain that before the Law – for righteousness – we stand condemned. Yet we also acknowledge that Christ perfectly fulfilled the command of the Law and in fact embodied the spirit of the Law. We recognize that He promises that He will give grace to us in our struggle against the sin that so easily besets us, and for that reason, we embrace the illuminating effects of the Law – it spotlights our sin, it glorifies God, it drives us again and again and again to Christ.