Tags
Jesus & Civil Law
Michael Horton has written a very good article regarding the death of Osama bin Laden and how we view the ‘two kingdoms’, a.k.a the City of God and the City of Man a la Augustine, and their differences in light of justice. In his article, Michael makes a statement that truly fascinated me:
Cultures are the most dangerous when they invoke holy texts for their defense of holy land through holy war. However, Christians have no biblical basis for doing this in the first place. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus clearly abrogated the ceremonial and civil law that God had given uniquely to the nation of Israel. Now is the era of common grace and common land, obeying rulers—even pagan ones—and living under constitutions other than the one that God gave through Moses. As Paul reminds us in Romans 13, secular rulers are given the power of the temporal sword—finite justice—while the gospel conquers in the power of the Spirit through that Word “above all earthly pow’rs.” – Michael Horton [emphasis mine, ed.]
By all means, I commend the entire article to you. It is both a good, and beneficial read. The article appeared in Christianity Today as a guest opinion piece and is entitled, The Death of Osama bin Laden: What Kind of Justice Has Been Done?
What specifically fascinated me was this statement:
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus clearly abrogated the ceremonial and civil law that God had given uniquely to the nation of Israel.
My question to you, the reader, is simple: Did Jesus abrogate civil law in the sermon on the mount? If he did, Horton is correct. If He did not, Horton is mistaken and due note should be taken for our benefit.
First, let me state quite plainly that Jesus was no pacifist. I am well aware of the popularity of professing Christians advocating pacifistic ideals when it comes to war, gun-control, etc, but for the most part, foundations for taking such positions are often tenuous at best.
Nowhere in His ministry, much less in the Sermon on the Mount, did Jesus or any of His disciples imply or state that either Israel, Rome or anyone else for that matter, disarm or abandon Old Testament civil laws.
Not once. Find it if you can. But you won’t.
The silence of Jesus Christ in regards to the removal of use of violent force in accordance to Old Testament civil laws can only mean His approval of it. What other conclusion can we arrive at without reading into Scripture what is not there?
It is absurd, in light of the Christocentric aspect of Scripture, to assume that Jesus ‘abrogated’ Old Testament civil laws. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus was contrasting the law of God within the hearts of the regenerate with the external legalism of rabbinic Judaism.
NOWHERE in the Sermon on the Mount does Jesus:
- Mention war
- Mention the state
- Mention governments protecting citizens
- Mention the use of armed forces.
In the sermon on the mount, our Lord is discussing personal ethics, characteristics of a true believer, inner qualities of piety – not civil law.
So I am quite fascinated with Michael’s statement that Jesus “clearly” abrogated the civil law of the Old Testament.
I don’t see it, anywhere in the Sermon on the Mount.
Most likely, because it is not there.
One final note. It is ‘the peacemakers’ who will be called sons of God (Matthew 5:9).
The Greek word for peacemakers was one of Caesar’s titles. Why? Because he won and maintained peace by the use of force. The word does not mean peace, or pacifist, meekness, etc.
It meant peace through strength….Force…..and that truth came from Old Testament civil law.
Joel,
I agree with your take on it which is nicely summarized by your statement: “In the sermon on the mount, our Lord is discussing personal ethics, characteristics of a true believer, inner qualities of piety – not civil law.”
And that’s not the first time or only point of interpretation on which Horton has been wrong.
Well, Manfred, I’m just saying…
Wow. I remember Greg Bahnsen’s son on twitter going off on the article but I failed to read it.
It’s sad that Michael Horton would take such an autonomous view of Government and use the very passage in the New Testament that Christ Upholds the Civil law and say he abborgated it.
Matthew 5:17-19
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
What does Fufill mean? It surely doesn’t mean Abolish? Did Jesus say I did not come to abolish the law, but abolish the law? No. It means that Christ came to keep the law for us on our behalf but it does not mean that we are now exempt from keeping the laws.
Has heaven and earth passed away?
People still need a blood atonement for their sins. People are still bound by that law. The only difference now is Christ is that blood atonement once and for all those he died for. Therefore as Hebrews states, the ceremonial laws have “changed” because of our new High priest.
Still, there is nothing said in regards to Governments not upholding the laws, in fact in the very same Gospel, in Matthew 15 Jesus says:
He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ 5But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,”a 6he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the wordb of God. 7You hypocrites! \
Why would Jesus later on condemn the Pharisees for something be just abrogated? That makes no sense whatsoever.
Finally,
How then shall the Government rule? Autonomously? By the will of the depraved people? No way. The Government some how gets exempt from using scripture as the sole authority in their practice? No way.
OK, I am done.
Thanks for posting this Joel….I guess.
Joel,
I enjoy your blog, but I have to disagree with you here. I think what Mike is trying to do is distinguish between the City of God and the City of man. Here in the US, Christians often have a tendency to confuse the two.
He’s not saying (if I understand him correctly) that the US should not seek justice when it has been attacked. What he is saying is that Christians do not have the same mandates that national Israel had. We are not told to go out and kill the evil people (Canaanites, Hittites, etc.), rather, as Christians, we are to love them and show them Christ.
19Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. – Romans 12:19-21
I understand what you mean when you say that, “In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus was contrasting the law of God within the hearts of the regenerate with the external legalism of rabbinic Judaism.” I agree with you totally. He’s not saying that governments should not do those things, but that is how Christians should be characterized.
I believe you will see in the following quote that Mike is contrasting the City of God with the City of Man. I saw many postings of Christians on facebook rejoicing at bin Laden’s death. Yet, as Christians, we are to pray for our enemies (I mean Christians, not the US and our government-they may seek justice and rightly so). I am italicizing particular points that Mike makes that speak to this contrast in the following quote.
“Second, it means that we cannot rejoice in the death of the wicked any more than does God (Ezek. 18:23). We may take satisfaction that temporal justice has been served, but Christians should display a sober restraint. When Christ returns, bringing infinite justice in his wake, his saints will rejoice in the death of his enemies. For now, however, he calls us to pray for our enemies, even for those who persecute us (Matt. 5:44). This is the day of salvation, calling sinners to repent and believe the gospel. We may delight in the temporal justice shown to evildoers, but leave the final justice to God.
Third, it means that the mandate to believe and to proclaim the gospel to every person is all the more urgent. After all, where would we be ourselves if Christ, in his first advent, had brought final and infinite justice instead of bearing it on behalf of his people? On the cross, Christ willingly offered himself as the lightning rod for God’s infinite wrath, rising triumphantly on the third day. The events of 9/11 did not change everything in the way that the events of 33 A.D. did. Nor will the death of Osama bin Laden on 5/1/11 satisfy the final justice that awaits him—and all of us—on the last day.
So as we take satisfaction in the honorable service of U.S. forces in bringing a terrorist to justice in the court of the temporal city, let us never dare to confuse this with “the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God” (Heb. 11:10). In our response, let us use this opportunity to display to our non-Christian neighbors the radical contrasts between the biblical view of God, humanity, redemption, and the last judgment, and the religious and secularist distortions—even those that profess to be Christian.
Ok, but the question, which I don’t believe you addressed, remains: Where in the Sermon on the Mount did Jesus abrogate the ceremonial and civil law? That was after all the point of the post. There was no question about the differences between the city of God vs the City of Man.
Pingback: Anti-Gun Gospels « United Shooter's Association