CHAPTER ELEVEN
THE UNIVERSAL EQUITY PRINCIPLE, PART ONE

The triune God’s sovereignty over the heavens and earth is focused in the present age in the person of Jesus, the Messianic King (Ps(s) 2, 110; Mt 28:18; Ac 2:32-36; Eph 1:20-23). He is reigning now until he brings all his enemies as a footstool for his feet (Ps 110; Isa 9:1-6; 1Co 15:20-28).

As King, Yahweh-Jesus is judging the peoples with the righteous equity of his law (Ps 96:10ff). The whole earth is now being weighed and found negligent because it does not keep the covenant law of King Yahweh-in-Christ (see Isa 24:4-6).

The Gospel, however, does not stop there. It is true that King Jesus’ Great Commission is similar in form to ancient vassal covenants made between a King and his subjects. "It preserves a characteristic covenant form" (Hedlund 1991, 63; see also Gentry 1990, 15-23). A broken covenant brings the King’s wrath. However, in the new covenant mandate, King Jesus commands his people to bring good news and disciple all disobedient peoples, teaching them to turn about and obey his law.

Both Testaments teach that Yahweh commands all peoples of the earth to repent and bow in obedience to the royal Son of God (Ps(2) 2, 67, 96, 110:1-2; Isa 45:22-25; Ac 17:30; Ro 16:25-27). This Son, the Servant of Yahweh, is the Light of the peoples (Isa 42:1-7, 49:6; Ac 13:47). He, and his disciples (see Acts 13:47), will bring the light of justice and tôrâh (instruction, law) to the goyim (Isa 2:3-4, 42:4, 51:2-4; Mic 4:1-2).

All the families of the earth will be blessed in him (Abrahamic Covenant). Also, the kings of the earthly nations will be drawn to the heavenly King due to the just light of the King’s tôrâh-word: "Nations (goyim) will come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your dawn" (see Isa 60).

Furthermore, the prophets uniformly testify that "in the last days," the days of Messiah (see Ac 2:17; Heb 1:2; 1Co 10:11), the mountain of the Lord, the Zion above (Gal 4:26ff; Heb 12:22ff), will be raised up. As a result all the peoples (goyim) will be converted and stream to it. These peoples will learn the ways of the Lord.

The goal of the King’s mission mandate is to transform all families, kings, and peoples of the earth according to the standards of the Kingdom of God in Christ. "The cultural mandate and the missionary mandate are thus vitally related in the ongoing covenant of life" (Young 1977, 65; see also Gentry 1990; Van Gelder 1994). The Psalms express the result of the Lord Christ’s covenant mission:

Thus the Trinitarian Sovereignty and the Covenant Principles are intimately connected with the King’s law. Clearly the prophetic vision of the Restorative Eschatology Principle includes the rule of the Messianic King by means of his tôrâh-word. With his written Word (Sola Scriptura Principle), he will rule, judge and arbitrate among all peoples. In obedience to him, they will experience peace (Isa 2:2-5, 11:1ff; Mic 4:1-2).

The intimate interdependence of the first four principles is obvious. The last foundational principle, then, is also intertwined in the comprehensive reformational worldview used in this dissertation. This is the Universal Equity Principle. To introduce this last principle, it is necessary to see the continuity of the legal system of the first and second covenants.

The new covenant assumes covenantal and legal continuity with the original Mosaic law as discussed in the Covenant Principle. The question remains: What exactly is this legal-covenantal standard? Is it merely the Decalogue or more than these ten commands?

Contemporary Scholars and Ethical Relevance of the Law

It is not merely the Theonomists like Bahnsen, Rushdoony, and North who are addressing this issue. Some non-Theonomist, especially Walter Kaiser, Jr. and Christopher J. H. Wright see the relevance of the whole tôrâh-standard of God for contemporary ethno-culture (see Kaiser 1978a, 1978b, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1993; Wright 1983, 1984a, 1984b, 1992a, 1992b, 1993, 1995a, 1995b).

Kaiser and Wright are convinced that the relevance of the Old Testament law of God is one of the key issues in the universal church today (see especially Wright 1983, Kaiser 1987). Finding the contemporary relevance of the whole tôrâh-standard of God is a critically neglected issue in contemporary missiology as well.

Kaiser writes:

Introduction to Universal Equity

This chapter desires to show continuity between the original Puritans and this dissertation’s neo-Puritan standard. Therefore, it must briefly, at this point, introduce the concept of "general equity" found in the 19th Chapter, section four of the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647/1985). This concept seems also to be implicit within the Belgic Confession.

According to the Westminster Confession, the whole system of "sundry judicial laws," "expired . . ., not obliging any other now." However, the Confession then complicates the issue. Whereas the whole system of judicials expired with the Jewish "body politick" (probably in 70 A. D.), the ethics enshrined in the judicials do indeed "[oblige us] further . . . [through that which] the general equity thereof may require" (WCF, 19.4).

The Belgic Confession further adds to the complication in a key passage from Article 25, cited completely below. There the BC speaks about using "the testimonies taken out of the law and the prophets . . . to regulate our life . . . according to His will" (BC, 25).

It is this author’s opinion that the problem of relating the biblical tôrâh-standard, the Gospel of grace, and the transformation of the peoples of the world is summarized in the specific meaning of these words in the WCF and the BC.

Reformed theologians (and most evangelicals) agree that the Ten Commandments have abiding significance today. However, not all would agree that they are a summary of the moral law of God. Hence they are not the totality of God’s covenantal morality: "The moral law is summarily comprehended in the ten commandments" (WLC, ans. 98).

Answer 99 in the Westminster Larger Catechism gives eight rules for the correct unfolding of each summary commandment so that the moral law can be applied to all areas of life, in all cultures. In the interpretation of each commandment, the principle of synecdoche must be used to derive its exhaustive meaning. In other words each commandment concisely summarizes a greater scope of cases than that which is explicitly mentioned.

Walter Kaiser agrees, citing the WLC (ques. 99, rule 3):

The WLC summarizes: "That one and the same thing is diverse respects, is required or forbidden in several commandments" (WLC, ans. 99, rule 3). Later it states: "Where a duty is commanded, the contrary sin is forbidden; and, where a sin is forbidden, the contrary duty is commanded. . . ." (WLC, ans. 99, rule 4).

The WLC annexes footnote "z" to this rule, citing Matthew (15:4ff). Here the Lord Himself clearly uses the above principle in his exposition of the commandment: "Honor your father and mother." Using that commandment’s casuistic law contrary, the Lord illustrates the fullness of the commandment’s scope: "he that curseth father and mother, let him die the death."

The Catechism explains further: "That under one sin or duty, all of the same kind are forbidden or commanded; together with all the causes, means, occasions, and appearances thereof, and provocations thereunto." (WLC, ans. 99, rule 6).

Throughout the whole of the explanation of the Ten Commandments, the Westminster divines used the above principles to apply biblical ethics to the totality of life. In so doing, they often used the judicial laws to enjoin the contrary duty or to forbid the contrary sin. A similar thing happens in the Heidelberg Catechism, as shall be seen.

In conclusion then, the Lord and the divines taught that the judicial laws were not totally useless but were indeed valuable for the Christian (see 2Ti 3:16-17). Because the Ten Words only summarize, they must speak specifically to many more issues than that which the commandments specifically address. In other words, each commandment is a "hook" upon which to hang all the closely related ethical issues.

For example, the Decalogue does not speak specifically to the contemporary issues of "abortion . . . euthanasia, bestiality, marrying one’s own family members, in vitro fertilization and a hundred other topics" that modern culture "waits to ask of those who claim to have revelation from God" (Kaiser 1990, 301).

However, New Testament ethical statements and the Pentateuchal case laws, along with their interpretation in the prophets, do speak in principle and often in specific detail to many of these issues. Thus biblical ethics fill in specific sub-points of each of the norms which the Ten Commandments outline.

Therefore, for these two major creeds, the tôrâh (i.e., wisdom, instruction) of God found throughout the Bible is a wise standard according to which the Creator, through the power of the Holy Spirit, will transform the peoples. The Psalmist speaks cogently of this:

This remains true for contemporary culture as well. As shall be seen, however, there has been much discussion as to how to separate the parochial from the universal in the tôrâh. What can for certain be said is that the Reformed consensus would teach that the Law of God consists of some culture bound forms (i.e., diversity) and some universally valid (i.e., unity) principles.

The following three chapters will attempt to contribute something to the questions which these Confessions have brought up and to the discussions concerning that which is culturally universal. Secondly, these answers will be applied to the document Church and Society to see if the heirs of Calvin in the NGK are living up to their legacy and the new insights into Scripture which that legacy has generated.

Few disagree that the Calvinist reformers used the whole law of God in developing social, religious, and economic paradigms or blueprints (see the Covenant Principle). Though not always consistent, they used both the general (Decalogue) and the specific (casuistic) principles of biblical law. As Kaiser points out, it has been the Theonomy movement which has forced the issue back into the Classes, Presbyteries and General Assemblies of contemporary Reformed Churches especially in North America.

Although not agreeing with Theonomy on significant issues, this dissertation nevertheless agrees that there is a certain continuity between the stated desires of Theonomists and that of early Calvinist Reformers.

Calvin’s Perspective

Law Professor, Lourens M. du Plessis, writes in "Calvin, ‘Calvinism,’ and present day South Africa":

He continues:

Calvin, then believed in the concept of a biblically "blueprinted" civil (and ecclesial) government. His doctrine

Former Theonomist, James Jordan, substantially agrees. Although Calvin seems to have a contradictory attitude to the Tôrâh of Moses, this tension is resolved when one notes:

An Example of Beza’s Perspective

Theodore Beza, Calvin’s immediate successor in Geneva also had a deep respect for the wisdom of biblical law. In a short work, published in 1577, Beza categorizes the total "political law under the topics covered in the Ten Commandments" (Summers 1986, 76). In his introduction to the work, Beza supported the traditional division of the law into three categories. He states that his arrangement of the political laws under each Commandment was to demonstrate that "the political law shows us how to use the moral law in everyday society." In so doing, it "arms the civil magistrate against those who transgress [both tablets of] the moral law" (Summers 1986, 79).

Thus the judicial laws concretized the moral law into specific cases where it could be properly applied. Though modern magistrates are not obligated to "copy and adhere . . . verbatim" to the political laws, all just laws must be based on the moral law. The judicials serve as "role models" for contemporary government (Summers 1986, 80).

An Example of Bucer’s Perspective

Martin Bucer, a mentor of Calvin, wrote in De Regno Christi, the following ("The Fourteenth Law: The Modification of Penalties"):

Calvin, Beza, and Bucer had a profound respect for the wisdom and justice of the judicial laws of God. Unfortunately, the description of what is universally valid and what is temporal and culture specific were ambiguous. Bucer, for example, says we are freed from the civil decrees of Moses so that they are no longer necessary to be enforced "in terms of the way and the circumstances in which they are described." These "ways" and "circumstances" he does not describe.

However, he does not merely end the matter there. "The substance and proper end of these commandments" and especially commands which are not merely for individuals but for the common welfare ("especially those which enjoin the discipline that is necessary for the whole commonwealth"),are still to be "conscientiously observed." Thus again, Bucer like Calvin seems to give back with one hand that which he took away with the other. In doing so, however, he does not give any biblical guidelines for determining that which is parochial and that which is universally valid.

These three examples of early Reformers illustrate that the judicial law was not cavalierly rejected as too often occurs today. As we shall see, however, especially Bucer’s understanding of the topic anticipates the two major Reformed confessions.

Early Continental Reformed Standards and the Case Laws

It is interesting to note that the Belgic Confession, Article 25 reflects this original Reformed emphasis upon the applicability of the Mosaic judicials to modern society.

It clearly states that only "the ceremonies and symbols of the law ceased at the coming of Christ, and that all the shadows are accomplished. . . . However, at the same time, "the truth and substance of them remain with us in Jesus Christ, in whom they have their completion" (BC, 25). There remains continuity in baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and so forth (see BC, 34).

That confession, however, still claims that a careful and wise application to modern society of the "testimonies" of the law and prophets must be made. This certainly includes both the moral and judicial laws as they are expounded in the Pentateuch and the prophets.

In other words, only the culture-bound ceremonial form has changed but the essential meaning and universal and eternal equity of both the ceremonies and the judicials remains eternal and applicable for modern life, if applied wisely.

In addition to this, Article 36 enjoins upon the civil magistrate the duty "also to protect the sacred ministry" and thus he "may remove and prevent all idolatry and false worship, that the kingdom of antichrist may be thus destroyed and the kingdom of Christ promoted" (BC, 36).

Therefore, clearly, both Tablets of the moral Law were to be enforced by the Magistrate leaving the door open to the judicials to be used in their correct function as the application of the moral law to specific cases. This, as shall be seen, is how the Heidelberg Catechism uses the judicial laws which expound the Decalogue.

When the BC teaches the civil magistrate to enforce both tablets of the Law, it follows Beza, Bucer, Calvin, Pierre Viret (see Linder 1964), and other early Reformed fathers such as Wollebius and Turretin who cite Mosaic judicials in this regard.

NGK Theologian, Pieter Coertzen, shows that Article 39 of Calvin’s Confessio Gallicana, from which Guido de Bres liberally borrowed in composing the BC, states that God obligates the civil governor to enforce both tablets of the Law:

When the Heidelberg Catechism applies the moral law to all areas of life including the civil magistrate, it explicitly cites judicial case laws as illustrating and specifying each moral law. For example, Question 91 asks: "What are good works?" The Answer is "Only those which are done from true faith (1), according to the law of God (2), and to his glory (3); and not such as are based on our own opinions or the precepts of men (4)." Footnote (2) cites, among other verses, a case law, as being of modern applicability (Lev 18:4).

Another example is question 94 which forbids divination, sorcery and witchcraft by citing case laws (Lev 19:31; Dt 18:9, 10). Question 99 deals with the Third Commandment and cites case laws four times (Lev 5:1, 19:12, and Lev 24:15, 16 — concerning the death penalty for blasphemy). Question 195 concerns itself with the Sixth Commandment and includes the case law provision for the death penalty for premeditated murder (Ex 21:17).

In summary, what the Reformed fathers meant by the "testimonies taken out of the law and the prophets to . . . regulate our life in all honourableness to the glory of God, according to his will" (BC, 25) and the term "general equity" (WCF) is clearly illustrated by two case laws.

The Westminster Confession (WCF, 19.4, n. "g") cites the following: "You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain" (1Co 9:9-12, citing Dt 25:4). Here Paul takes a universally applicable principle of the law and applies it to a new situation, viz. to the need to financially support Christian pastors. "[Paul] has expertly taken from its temporary wrapping a permanent principle, as Moses intended" (Kaiser 1978b, 15; see also Kaiser 1987 [Chapter 7]).

The second case law cited is the one which speaks about making banisters around a flat topped roof (Dt 22:8; see similar case of an open well: Ex 21:33ff). Whereas the details of that particular law ceased to be relevant when that culture with its flat topped houses expired, still the equity abides. Love watches out for one’s neighbor’s well-being.

Love, thus, fulfills the law (Ro 13:8ff). Love watches out for one’s neighbor’s spiritual and physical safety when designing and constructing buildings, as well as every other area of life. Calvin’s comments on Deuteronomy 22:8 seem to agree totally with this concept of "general equity":

Calvin and his disciples’ goal was to put family, church and civil government under a biblical "rule of law." The question remains, however, whether the NGK’s C&S document has a similar purpose. Does the NGK accept or reject God’s blueprints for all three covenantal governments? Does it follow the classical Reformed tradition which this dissertation’s neo-Puritan standard wishes to uphold or not?

Clearly, if there are no divine blueprints, then man must make his own. The only two choices man possesses are to be ruled by God’s "good, just, and holy" law (Ro 7:12; Heb 2:2) or by the arbitrary humanistic caprice of evil men who always become oppressors and tyrants when given the chance — human rights and paper constitutions not withstanding.

Deuteronomy Shows Suzerainty Treaty Form

Recent scholarship has begun to substantiate the insight of Beza, Calvin and others that the judicial case laws are an exposition of the moral law. The very structure of the covenant inseparably binds the case laws, as exposition, to the Ten Commandments, as summary principles.

The reason that the French, Dutch, and English speaking Reformers desired to carry out the "equity" of the case laws, including even the penal sanctions attached to violations of the Decalogue, was quite clear. To enforce, for example, the first tablet of the Decalogue by executing the penalties stipulated in the case law applications of those first four commandments did not "presume to judge the secret thoughts of the heart, but only restrain the actual outward manifestation of the lawbreaking." (Bahnsen 1984, 538).

These Divines realized with Paul that unless "the wicked man is expelled (or purged)" — here Paul cites the LXX Case Law (Dt 17:7, 19:19, 22:21, 24, 24:7) — then he will "leaven [i.e., rot] the whole batch of dough" (1Co 5:13, 6). These men did not hold the idealistic view of the goodness of human nature that is so prevalent today.

Certainly, they would agree with and cite the preacher of old. Unless "the sentence for a crime is quickly carried out, the hearts of the people are filled with schemes to do wrong" (Ec 8:11). Religious apostasy publicly practiced and openly propagated is the "bitter root which springs up to corrupt many" — the whole society (Heb 12:15; Dt 29:18).

Unrepentant, heart-apostasy leads eventually to all the outward manifestations of the evils listed in Romans One and the various Reformed catechisms: abortion-murder, "debasing of currency or false coins" [i.e., inflation causing monetary manipulations (HC, ques. 110)], idolatry, sexual immorality, homosexuality, and a total corrupt, perverse, "unapproved" mindset which calls darkness light and approves of anything that is the complete opposite of God’s righteousness (Ro 1:18-32). This always invokes the direct wrath of God in time and space (Ro 1:18).

The curses of Deuteronomy 28, Calvin and these Reformed-Protestant Divines believed, were just as real in the days of the Theocratic Republic — and the Monarchy — as they are in today’s age of grace. So then also are the blessings for the obedience of faith (see Ps 1; Pr 2:1-22; Mt 7:24-27; Mk 10:28-30; Jas 1:22-25; 1Pe 3:10-12; Eph 6:1-3).

Biblical Foundation for Universal Applicability of Case Laws

Both the Old and New Testaments explicitly and inferentially claim that each case laws possesses universally applicable principles.

No Kingdom without Universal Covenant with All Mankind

First of all, the Bible knows of no Kingdom of God without a universal covenant with mankind, begun at creation. This covenant was comprehensive, over every area of life, and its ethical standards were binding on all mankind, even in its Mosaic form.

If this were not true, Yahweh would be a bloodthirsty tyrant because he ordered His people to destroy the Canaanites from the land:

Truly the antinomian, cultural customs of the Amorites were perverse:

The New Testament clearly agrees that there exists a universal standard and God’s universal wrath against covenant-breakers in several passages. Romans 1 and 2, the foundational passages of Paul’s Gospel, bear clear witness to this. Men know the Creator and suppress the truth about the necessity to worship him and to follow his righeousness. That righteousness is inscribed on their consciences (Ro 1:32, 2:1-3, 2:15).

It includes not just knowledge of the Decalogue but also the moral application of the Decalogue found in the judicials and the prophets. Homosexuality, lesbianism (Ro 1:26-27) as well as heterosexual promiscuity (Ro 1:24) is condemned along with unrepentance, depravity, arrogance, invention of evil, faithlessness, and so forth.

Ephesians is another excellent example because it uses language echoing Psalm 2, a Messianic Psalm (underlined below):

Law applies moral aspects of judicials to goyim.

A second witness of this assertion is Leviticus 18 and 20. The idolatry, sorcery, moral and sexual perversions of the Canaanites, contrary to God's moral-judicial case law, were the reason why Yahweh called upon his people to exercise the death penalty upon them.

A third witness of this assertion is God’s repeated exposure of the sins of the heathen peoples by means of the prophets. Yahweh judges the goyim according to the moral equity of the judicial laws. Yahweh often judges the violations of the direct wording of the Ten Commandments. However, he also often condemns and judges violations of the moral law as it is specifically found in the wording of the judicials, that which the Decalogue summarize.

Thus when the Israelites executed the death penalty upon the Canaanites in the land, they were serving as a collective magistracy exactly as God used Nebuchadnezzer and Assyria upon Israel when they committed capital crimes. Nebuchadnezzer, in turn, was God's sword of justice upon the heathen nations who violated the moral law of God. This law was summarized in the Ten Commandments but also expressed in the moral equity of the judicials.

Israel as a Model-Paradigm to the Nations.

There is a third line of evidence that the Scripture teaches ethical continuity between Testaments. Clearly, Israel and its tôrâh-wisdom was the model or paradigm of just and righteous culture for the benefit of the goyim. Since divine justice is as eternal and unchanging as God is the Law of God was the standard for life in the universal Kingdom of God.

Deuteronomy is crystal clear on this point:

Wright's exposition of this point is exceptional:

Larkin agrees as to the purpose of Deuteronomy 4:

Larkin proceeds to show how this "God-ordained Old Testament pattern for national culture" (Larkin 1992, 197) was to work. First of all,

Then the Lord moved from that one model culture as a geographically limited unit, to the church which was to take the universal in that model culture into all other cultures:

Calvin’s sermon on this passage in Deuteronomy, concurs:

Old Testament and the essential character of all the commands

The nature and character of God are the unchanging absolute behind universal principles of equity and justice found in the law. The ethical directives of the Old Testament were directly grounded in the eternal and unchanging nature of God.

Geerhardus Vos sums up the biblical doctrine:

Preaching on Psalm 119:137-144, Calvin agree:

Therefore, what God required was what he himself was and is and shall always be. "At the heart of every moral command was the theme ‘I am the LORD’ or ‘Be holy as I the LORD your God am holy. . . . ’" (Kaiser 1983, 29; see also Gentry 1993; Ps 25:8-14).

Psalm 119 is an ode to this great theme:

The constant statements of the Psalms concerning the perfection, trustworthiness, eternality, as well as the righteous and just character of all of God’s laws, judgments, commands, and statutes cannot merely be limited to the Decalogue. Yahweh’s "law," "statutes," "precepts," "commands," "fear," "ordinances" are "perfect," "trustworthy, making wise the simple;" "right," "radiant," "pure, enduring forever," "sure," and "altogether righteous." Surely, "they are more precious than gold," "sweeter than honey," warning of discipline for disobedience but promising "great reward" "in keeping them" (Ps 19:9-11).

There is one inescapable conclusion. Not one of God’s commandments are unnecessary and without purpose. No yodh or tittle will fail from God’s law (Mt 5:17-19; Lk 16:17), because everything in the law is useful and meaningful (see Kaiser 1987).

Thus although God does give many cases of "positive law" binding

However, this principle does not imply that the law "in exhaustive detail" (Bahnsen 1984, 39) is directly applicable to today in all of its "‘jots and tittles,’ not the least of which are circumcision, the calendar, and the dietary code" (Gordon 1994, 33). The created meaning in every detail of the law remains (BC, 25) as well as every creational form, but certainly not the culturally relative forms in which the meaning may be enclothed. "That man does not break ceremonies, who omits what is shadowy, but retains their effect" (Calvin 1963, 280).

New Testament uses Mosaic legal principles outside Decalogue

The first line of evidence of ethical continuity is how the New Testament uses Old Testament ethical-moral principles found outside of the Decalogue but in the judicial commands. When Paul and the New Testament writers speak of the abiding significance of the apodictic law of love for God and neighbor, they most often illustrate this with the Ten Commandments (see Ro 13:8-10; Gal 5:14; Jas 2:8-13). However, this is not always the case.

James. For example, James mentions the abiding significance of the judicials often in his epistle:

Paul. The apostle Paul often uses the judicial law of Moses as well. Beyond the direct use of the judicials by Paul (and other New Testament authors), as discussed previously, Galations (5:19-21, 23b) and First Timothy (1:7-10) are excellent illustrations of this. In contrasting the deeds of the flesh and the fruit of the Spirit, Paul states that the divine fruit was not forbidden by the law implying that the deeds of the flesh are. Indeed each of the listed sins are forbidden in the judicials (e.g., immorality, impurity and debauchery; witchcraft, hatred, orgies, etc.) as well as directly by the Decalogue (e.g., idolatry).

Indeed, it is interesting to compare the list of forbidden sins in Galations Five with similar ones in other Pauline Epistles (Ro 1:18-2:11; 1Co 6:9-10; Eph 2:3, 5:3-6; Col 3:5-6). Doing so demonstrates that it was because of the violations of universal creation, design-norms, also enscribed in Mosaic legislation, that divine wrath comes upon men. None who do these evils will enter the resurrection kingdom.

Another illustration is in Paul’s first epistle to Timothy (1Ti 1:7-10). There Paul seems to use the Decalogue as a framework for showing how the whole law is to be used by Christians. In the process of doing this, he puts several of the case laws within the framework of the moral law, exactly as does Deuteronomy, the Book of the Covenant, Calvin, and Beza.

Paul writes: "We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for," (1, 2) Commandment One and Two: "lawbreakers and rebels," (3) Commandment Three: "the ungodly and sinful," (4) Commandment Four: "the unholy and irreligious;" (5) Commandment Five: "for those who kill their fathers or mothers," (the ultimate of dishonoring one's parents. See Christ's similar usage in Mt 15:3ff); (6) Commandment Six: "for murderers," (7) Commandment Seven: "for adulterers and perverts [homosexuals]," (8) Commandment Eight: "for slave traders" (i.e., stealing a man’s freedom); (9) Commandment Nine: "liars and perjurers;" (10) Commandment Ten: "for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel" (1Ti 1:8-11a NIV; Fowler and House 1983, 137).

New Testament Uses Mosaic Case Laws

Far from abolishing all present validity of the case laws of the Tôrâh, the New Testament cites several as authoritative support for ethical positions. The assumption is that the principle ("equity") the law expresses has continuing validity. This is true, as discusssed previously, with respect to at least some (perhaps most) of the death penalties as well as judicial procedure. It is true with respect to the following case laws the New Testament cites. These are merely a few of many examples that could be cited:

1. The apodictic love commandment (Mt 7:1; Gal 5:14; Ro 13:8ff, et al),

2. The apodictic command to be holy as God is holy (1Pe 1:16; Lev 11:44, 45, 19:2),

3. The causuistic command not to muzzle the ox while threshing, which Paul applies in principle to church employees (1Co 9:9; 1Ti 5:18; Dt 25:4)

4. The causuistic commandments concerning divorce (Mt 5:31ff, 19:3f; Dt 24:1f),

5. Defrauding, which Christ puts in the place of "coveting" in a list of the Ten Commandments (Mk 10:19; citing Dt 24:16 LXX, Dt 24:14 in English).

6. Lex talionis retribution which Christ correctly states was a judicial principle determining just punishment applicable to the Court (and Parliament). The goal, as we have seen, was to strictly limit their right to enforce penalties for crime. Lex talionis was not given as an excuse for personal vengeance (Mt 5:38f; Ex 21:24; Lev 24:20; Dt 19:21). Vengeance in both Testaments was reserved for the Lord and his delegated civil authorities (Ro 12:17-13:4; citing Dt 32:35).

7. Paul’s citing of the case law against speaking evil of the leadership of a country (Ac 23:5, citing Ex 22:27).

8. The law mandating the death penalty for a son who demonically calls curses upon his parents (Mt 15:4; Mk 7:3; Ex 21:17, Lev 20:9).

9. The case law mandating two or three witnesses in any court case (Mt18:16; 2Co 13:1; 1Ti 5:19; Heb 10:28; Dt 19:15)

10. The Ten Commandments are summarized using several of the case laws (1Ti 1:10ff; see above).

11. The works of the flesh are forbidden by the Law (i.e the Decalogue and the judicials) whereas the fruit of the Spirit are not (implied by Gal 5:19-21, 23).

12. Women are to be subordinate (1Co 14:34 citing "the law," possibly Nu 30, 36; Ge 2).

13. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians (1Co 5:13) cites Deuteronomy (Dt 13:5, 17:7, 12, 21:21, 22:21) in support of ecclesial, penal sanctions against an unrepentant violator of the tôrâh’s chastity laws (Lev 19).

14. The command not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers (1Co 6:14-18). This seems to be a reference to the "equity" of the Levitical command not to yoke an ox and a donkey together using exegetical principles similar to what Paul used in 1Co 9:8-10 (see again Kaiser 1978).

The Sermon on the Mount.

When Christ renewed his Father’s creation covenant with mankind in the new covenant (see Ro 5:12ff), he gave an authoritative interpretation of the Mosaic law in the Sermon on the Mount. In that sermon, he assumed the continuity of his law with the archaic covenant as well as its comprehensive nature (Mt 5:17-21).

The question remains, however, in what way did Christ "establish," "confirm," "make valid," "uphold and fill up the intended meaning of the law"?

One proposed solution is to make a redemptive-historical distinction between the law in the "original form" over against the eschatological "fulfilled form" (see Moo 1993, Gordon 1994 also argues on similar lines). When the prophesied purpose of the law is complete, we no longer are bound by it.

Besides being implicitly dispensationalist with a strong discontinuity motif, it clearly results in ethical unclarity. The laws proscribing, for example, bestiality, putting stumbling blocks before blind people, and cursing deaf people before their face cannot change from the original to the fulfilled form. Pure, loving holiness remains unchanged throughout the ages.

This distinction only makes sense in contexts dealing with the symbolic-ceremonial laws. However, even then the meaning is never changed otherwise we would have no Lamb to take away our sins! The context of Matthew 5 is not ceremonial but moral and judicial law so this prediction-fulfillment motif does not apply here (see Bahnsen and Kaiser’s essays and responses [Bahnsen and others 1993]; Martin 1990).

Another proposed solution seems to be making the answer dependent on the total "hermeneutical framework" one brings to the text (see Oss 1989, Poythress 1990, 1991). The danger with this approach is that it quickly degenerates into eisegesis, reading one’s own theological system into the text instead of letting the text instruct one’s system.

The strict theonomist, Greg Bahnsen correctly comments on this exact issue: "The absolutistic character of Christ’s words in Matthew 5:17-19 certainly supports the operating assumption of basic continuity" (Bahnsen 1991, 273). To this he immediately adds the following note in answer to the criticism that Jesus cannot be proclaiming strict continuity and then abrogate some of the commands in other passages:

In other words, Christ is proclaiming bold principial truth which is clarified and further specified in other Old and New Testament passages (especially James, the Prison epistles, Hebrews, Romans, and Galations). Paul’s strong assertions concerning the continuing validity of the law for those justified, released from sin and walking in the Spirit, are such clarifications (see Ro 6:16, 8:4, 13:8-10; also Ro 7:12ff). In Pauline teaching this certainly had nothing to do with the law "as marking out Jewish privilege and prerogative . . . ‘works of the law, nomistic service’" (Dunn 1988, 191) but the law characterized by faith-obedience. Hence, Paul did not break, abandon, or see the law as "superseded and abolished" contrary to some recent scholars such as E. P. Sanders and H. Räisänen (Dunn 1988, 191, see also Kaiser 1978; Fuller 1980, 1992).

Instead, Paul saw the law from two perspectives: "the law of faith" and the "law of works" (Ro 3:27). Seen from the perspective of "works" then "it is seen as distinctively Jewish and particular features come into prominence (particularly circumcision)." However, when the law is seen from the perspective of the faith-obedience it enjoins, then that which is specifically culturally Hebrew-Jewish does not any longer take the central position in life. Distinctively Jewish cultural requirements

The prophets foresaw the law-enforcing ministry of Messiah

The Old Testament prophesied a tôrâh proclaiming and enforcing ministry of Christ. He would bring the light of justice and tôrâh (instruction, law) to the goyim (Isa 2:3-4, 42:4, 51:2-4; Jer 31:33; Eze 11:20, 36:27; Mic 4:1-2). Because in these contexts Yahweh states this is "My tôrâh," which will come from the ideal Zion of the Messianic days, one must assume that he is speaking about the Mosaic tôrâh, the only one known to the readers, not any other law.

In fact, Yahweh judges the whole earth because it does not keep the royal, everlasting covenant law. How much more if men do not keep the same law as expounded by the Son!

As seen, the prophets foresaw the day that the tôrâh-law of Yahweh would be written on the hearts of believers in all the earth (Jer 31:33-34). Clearly there is continuity between the law of the first and the second covenant: "The ‘newness’ of the new covenant is not constituted by a new law; the old law has perpetual sanction" (Bahnsen 1984, 146).

Three alternatives dividing between secondary and universal laws

Therefore, the question boils down to what in the law is "subsidiary and secondary," that is not universally applicable to all peoples? Several answers have been proposed for this question.

Civil and ceremonial law is type of heaven. The whole civil and ceremonial law is symbolic-pictoral, pointing to a heavenly regime, not an earthly one: "the theocracy typified nothing short of the perfected kingdom of God, the consummate state of Heaven" and "the abode of Israel in Canaan typified the heavenly, perfected state of God’s people" (Vos 1975, 126, 127; see also Gordon 1994).

The problem with this type of amillenialist position is its implicit platonic dualism between the spiritual "heaven" and carnal "earth." In this Platonic-spiritual view, Canaan is a picture of the heavenly-spiritual rest experienced by Christians now in their hearts. That rest is only perfectly experienced in heaven after the resurrection. There are no necessary promises of that rest being realized now upon the earth (Kline 1978).

Of course this is true but actually only a half-truth. The rest of God is experienced perfectly in the future, and it is indeed spiritual. However, "spiritual" means Holy Spirit-ual not a non-earthly heavenly existence. We are, thus, to be diligent to enter into the Canaan-rest now (Heb 4). We must now experience its ramifications upon earth at the present time.

It is best to accept the exact opposite of the Platonic-spiritual view. This means that the crossing over Jordan into Canaan is a prophetic-symbolic picture of the people of God moving out into all corners of the earth. Their task in that centripetal movement is to "conquer" all the peoples with the sword of the Word, in the power of the Holy Spirit. Then they are to bring all aspects of every ethno-culture under the dominion of the King’s tôrâh.

Scripture does not make "heaven" the final perfected abode of elect humanity. That home is a renewed earth (Isa 65:17-25; Rev 21-22). Premillenialism, postmillenialism, and optimistic forms of amillenialism have more clearly seen the earthly aspects of the reign of Christ than platonized forms of amillenialism and inaugurated eschatology (see Restorative Eschatology Principle).

Therefore, although it has been inaugurated at the resurrection, ascension, and enthronement, the reign of Christ is expanding and growing until the final consummation. During the present age, Christ is progressively conquering his enemies, through his people, until the final enemy is conquered, death (Ps(s) 2, 110; 1Co 15). Thus although there are many consummation features of eschaton prophesies, much of what is forseen in these passages has present-age application as well (see e.g., Isa 65:17-25; Campbell 1981; Chilton 1985; Gentry 1992).

In conclusion, then, the whole of the nation of Israel and its social-legal system is a type of the Kingdom of God. In contrast to the Platonic-spiritual view, Scripture teaches that that kingdom is both arrived and is coming with growing cultural manifestations on earth now. Not denying again that perfection is only after the resurrection.

Only Decalogue universal. A second view is that only the Decalogue can be abstracted from the covenant and made universally valid (see e.g., Vos 1975; Kevan 1976; Duncan 1993). In this view, the judicial laws, would possess merely an "ad hoc character." That is, they would be "given in a unique situation, under temporary circumstances, to a particular people, serving in a special capacity" (Duncan 1993, 38).

Clearly, however, not even the Decalogue is a universal form without a specific cultural context. The Decalogue itself is set in a suzerainty covenant context of its time, together with servants, legal aliens, draft animals, legal oaths, forms of idolatry, slave-trading, and so forth assumed as cultural givens. Therefore, it too needs to be removed from its non-creational forms to be universalized. This the Lord and Paul do (Mt 15:3-6; Lk 18:19; Ro 7:7-8, 13:9; see Kaiser 1987 [chapter 7]; Gordon 1994 for discussion).

Only non-creational forms in the law are temporal. Contrary to a Platonic view and the view which exclusively abstracts the Decalogue, this third view is based on biblical foundations. The temporal aspects of the Tôrâh are (1) the ceremonial-cultic forms within the law which are symbols of some aspect of Christ and his work, and (2) the non-creational forms in which the Decalogue and the judicials are "clothed." The moral law and the universal moral principles in both the ceremonial and politico-judicial laws are, thus, universally valid.

If this third perspective were not true, then Reformed theologians would have no justification for teaching the rightness of certain principles in the ceremonial laws. For example, covenant-household baptism is the continuation of circumcision and the Lord’s Supper is in continuity with Passover. If this third principle were not true, then theologians could not teach that the following laws are universally just: (1) the necessity of covering the mouth of a well, (2) the distinction between premeditated murder and accidental death, (3) the prohibition of incest, bestiality, and a multitude of other things not mentioned specifically in the Decalogue.

Summary and conclusion.

Following the Covenant Principle, this dissertation’s Universal Equity Principle, therefore, rejects a Platonic-spiritual and an excessively abstractionist perspective. It is contrary to the doctrine of complete ethical continuity of the covenants and of progessive revelation. "All Scripture" is "profitable," and are given "to teach us." Thus all are "examples" and "warnings" "for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come" (2Ti 3:16-17; Ro 15:4; 1Co 10:11).

It is clear, then, that all spheres of life addressed in the Mosaic covenant are addressed by the tôrâh/nomos of the Messiah’s new covenant: (1) familial, (2) cultic-religious, (3) socio-economic, and (4) political-legal. The former covenant’s ethic is expounded and interpreted by the New Testament prophets and apostles, not contradicted by them.

"Jesus is linked to the Old Testament social tradition in which the leaders of Israel are called to account for their violation of God's covenant through acts of injustice" (Mott 1984, 21-22). So then also the Christian leaders of at least confessing Christian lands must be called to account. When rulers violate the universal principles of the law, God and their citizens must judge them according to the rule of divine law.

Second, the law within man’s created conscience (creation design-norms; Ro 1:32, 2:1-15), the equity of the judicials and the Decalogue of Moses; as well as the new covenant "law of Christ" (1Co 9:20-21; Gal 6:2) are equivalent. The only difference is the growing clarity, depth of application, and specificity as covenantal revelation progresses.

The basic assumption of both testaments, is that all the laws of God are "eternal," "holy, righteous and good" (see e.g., Ro 3:31, 7:12; 1Ti 1:7-10). "Every one of Thy righteous ordinances is everlasting" (Psa 119:160; see Ps 119:128,137-138,143-144,152, 172 NIV). Therefore, "all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness [and social justice]" (2Ti 3:16).

There are several common objections to the specific implication of this biblical doctrine. Is a non-Christian civil government accountable to the Creator to enforce every universal principle of biblical law? These principles, of necessity, are found both in the Decalogue and in the appropriate judicial case laws which illustrate and apply the moral law. The Reformed Ecumenical Synod’s document, RES Testimony on Human Rights seems to point out a more biblical doctrine:

Here there is consensus even with Theonomist G. Bahnsen:

There are, then, at least four levels of summarizing that can be derived from the Law itself: (1) The Love command (2) The Ten Commands which capsulize the abiding principles or (3) "General equity" found in every law of Moses, and (4) the case law commands enclosed in distinctive Hebrew cultural forms. The only culturally relative aspect of this whole four level system of summarization and application of the Mosaic law are the specific, Hebrew cultural forms (details) in the fourth level. This will be discussed more below.

Using a similar concept of levels of abstraction, Bahnsen rebuts an opposing position on the case laws:

New Testament Does not Limit Case Laws to Church Courts

Therefore it seems clear from Scripture that justice is defined by every word of Scripture. Justice is immutable, being essential to the eternal nature of God, defined by both specific principles found in casuistic law and universal values in apodictic law. Civil governments are obligated to protect the innocent and helpless groups, as well as punish, with the sword if need be, the evil-doers. They are to protect peace and tranquility in the land (Ps(s) 2, 82; Ro 13:1-7; 1Ti 2:1-2; 1Pe 2:14).

1 Corinthians 5 is a possible counter example to this contention. Firstly, 1 Corinthians 5 could prove that penalties for Mosaic crimes are enforceable solely in church courts, and secondly, it could also demonstrate that since church courts do not have the authority of the sword, the death penalty is thus rejected for Mosaic crimes (see Fowler n.d.; Chamblin 1988; Johnson 1990; Longman 1990; Kaiser 1990; Duncan 1993).

The basic assumption underlying this position is that the New Testament institutional church has replaced the Israelite nation as the Kingdom of God. The institutional church’s spiritual sword then totally replaces the iron sword of the Old Testment people of God.

This ecclesiocentric perspective, shared by Medieval theologians and Barthians, is clearly based on a non-biblical, Greek dualism, a nature-grace distinction. Neo-Calvinist Kuyperians and Dooyeweerdians as well as most theonomists such as Rushdoony reject this simplistic identification. The church of Christ, that is the city which is above, is the New Testament symbol of the Kingdom of God (see Heb 12:22). However, that New Jerusalem church above (Gal 4:21-31), encompasses the family, the institutional church, and the civil government.

Thus, as the theonomists, but not most neo-Calvinists, claim, the same law-system must be enforced in each of these creation spheres. Each sphere, however, possesses a different penal sanction: the rod, keys, and steel sword. (See Review of Literature, and the Restorative Eschatology Principle).

However, to grant the theonomic argument at this point does not exegetically commit one to the strict theonomic conclusion that all the death penalties attached to violations of non-ceremonial crimes found in the case laws are always mandatory. The Mosaic law itself has much more inbuilt flexibility as will be discussed in the next chapter.