Читать книгу The Will of God - Alex Soto - Страница 6

Like the apostle Paul, who always attaches a “therefore” to his doctrines, John Calvin believed in an applicable theology, an ethical theology. As the resolute herald of sola Scriptura, he supplied his ethic with the norms of God’s Word, including those norms given through Moses’ hand; indeed, “Biblical law served the basis of Calvin’s ethics.”1 So adamant was he that the Law is integral to morality, he wrote, “any zeal for good works that wanders outside God’s law is an intolerable profanation of divine and true righteousness.”2

With this moral system, Calvin and his followers conquered their worlds. The moral details of Mosaic revelation gave them a great edge over their rivals, propelling them into the lead of their cultures. While others remained in dark confusion, Calvinists followed a clear route, lit by script that boasts itself a lamp unto feet and a light unto paths. And since godliness holds promise for this life (Deut 28:1–2; 1 Tim 4:8), Calvin’s Law-ethic brought with it great prosperity. “To urge us in every way,” he would so often teach, “[God] promises both blessings in the present life and everlasting blessedness to those who obediently keep his commandments.”3 Wherever his influence spread, therefore, industry and education increased, idolatry decreased, ecclesiastical and political governments were well-ordered, and freedom abounded. One historian writes: “The principles which underlay Calvin’s theological and ecclesiastical system have been a powerful factor in the growth of civil liberty.”4 In fact, opposing arbitrary kingly power and deposing political tyrants have conspicuously marked the followers of Calvin’s ethic.5 The Encyclopedia Britannica sums it up well: “The Calvinist form of Protestantism is widely thought to have had a major impact on the formation of the modern world.”6

Modern American Christendom, though, in throwing out the Mosaic Law, undoes what the followers of Calvin have accomplished. It should come as no surprise that in a day when a popular theologian teaches “the Mosaic Law ended with the first advent of Christ,”7 a major magazine reports that “Christians are now making up a declining percentage of the American population.”8 Christianity’s lack of influence on this country correlates with the lack of influence of the Law of Moses on Christianity.

The present volume, summarizing Calvin’s commentaries on the Law of Moses, intends to reverse this trend. Understanding the will of the Lord, especially the detailed Mosaic portion,9 is prerequisite to making the nations Christ’s disciples. For as Christ makes teaching his commandments essential to this discipleship (Matt 28:20), Paul believed Christ’s commandments included Mosaic instructions. So though his apostle could pull rank to settle moral questions (see 1 Cor 7:12; 14:37), he also had the option to simply declare “it is written in the law of Moses” (1 Cor 9:9). This volume, then, though a summary of Calvin’s interpretation of Moses, also follows Paul as Paul followed Christ.

Structure of This Book

Calvin skillfully systematized his commentaries on Exodus through Deuteronomy.10 He begins with the first chapter of Exodus, with Israel in Egypt. He continues like any ordinary commentary, moving successively by chapter and verse, covering Israel’s history until they arrive at Mount Sinai. From there he stops the historical exposition and begins a systematic teaching on the Ten Commandments, rounding up all Mosaic laws under their respective Decalogical commandments, and then expounds each law.

This book summarizes Calvin’s systematic exposition of the laws of Moses. One of its aims is to give Christians a rapid education in ethics. Whereas Calvin’s exposition covers over eight hundred pages, this summary covers only a few hundred. Its bullet-point format further expedites the education; concise information takes priority over rhetorical flourish.

Each chapter deals with one of the Ten Commandments, and typically covers:

(1) General Principle.11 Each of the Ten Commandments teaches a general principle, but each conveys the principle by synecdoche; that is, the law specified is a part standing for a whole class of laws. For example, the sixth commandment reads “You shall not murder,” but the general principle is, “We must not vex, oppress, or hate anyone.” “You shall not murder” is a particular law standing for a whole class of laws forbidding vexations, oppressions, and hatred. Explaining why God might have chosen to present the Decalogue this way, Calvin writes:

God has set forth by way of example the most frightful and wicked element in every kind of transgression, at the hearing of which our senses might shudder, in order that he might imprint upon our minds a greater detestation of every sort of sin. . . . For example, when called by their own names, we do not consider anger and hatred as things to be cursed. Yet when they are forbidden under the name “murder,” we better understand how abominable they are in the sight of God, by whose Word they are relegated to the level of a dreadful crime.12

Each header, furthermore, retains the positive or negative wording of the Ten Commandments. If the commandment reads, “You shall,” the header is stated positively; if “You shall not,” the header is stated negatively. Calvin reminds us, though, that “in negative precepts, . . . the opposite affirmation is also to be understood.”13 So the sixth commandment does not simply prohibit oppressions, it also positively affirms “the requirement that we give our neighbor’s life all the help we can.”14

(2) Decalogue law. In the sixth commandment, for instance, Calvin first interprets the Decalogical law “You shall not murder.”

(3) Exposition. These case laws illustrate how the general principle taught in that Decalogical law applies in various situations. For example, Calvin considers “You shall not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling block before the blind” (Lev 19:14) as a particular case law that illustrates, or gives an “exposition” of, the principle taught in the sixth commandment. Cursing the deaf and tripping the blind are cases of oppression.

(4) Political supplemental laws (if applicable). Lastly, Calvin collects and interprets political supplements, or aids, to the commandments. With the sixth commandment again, he regards Leviticus 24:17—“Whoever kills any man shall surely be put to death”—as aiding political authorities to handle murder.

Uses of This Book

One may use this volume, first, as a reference guide. When encountering a difficult law in Moses’ writings, simply refer to the Scripture index to locate the page in this volume discussing that law. Or perhaps you need ethical guidance about a particular matter. Knowing that the Ten Commandments are ten perspectives on all of life, simply read the chapter of the Decalogical law dealing with the matter in question. Suppose, for instance, the matter concerns what to do about a stray dog that has appeared on your front porch, whom your children desire to keep. Since the matter concerns property, and knowing that the eighth commandment deals with property (let the “General Principle” headers help you here), reading through the chapter on the eighth commandment will bring you across Deuteronomy 22:1–3 and Exodus 23:4. These verses will guide you to make a righteous decision about the dog.

Using this book as a reference guide, though, involves research after a question arises. For the more initiated students, who prepare themselves for questions before they emerge (Prov 15:28), this volume can also be used for an expedited ethics education. In a sense, these few hundred pages cover the entirety of moral instruction. For though the Scriptures sufficiently supply us with moral direction, completely training us in righteousness and equipping us for every good work (2 Tim 3:16–17), the Mosaic revelation occupies a unique place in Scripture. Concerning ethics, it is the seed from which the rest of the Scriptures blossom. As Calvin rightly teaches, the new oracles of the prophets added to the Old Testament (i.e., the books of Joshua through Malachi) were “not so new that they did not flow from the law and hark back to it. As for doctrine, they were only interpreters of the law and added nothing to it except predictions of things to come. Apart from these, they brought nothing forth but a pure exposition of the law.”15 Likewise with the relationship between the Old Testament and the writings of the apostles: “so far as relates to the substance, nothing has been added; for the writings of the apostles contain nothing else than a simple and natural explanation of the Law and the Prophets.”16 Consequently, all moral revelation traces back to that Scripture written with God’s own finger (Exod 31:18; Deut 9:10), causing Calvin to say confidently: “nothing can be wanted as the rule of a good and upright life beyond the Ten Commandments.”17 Reading this book from cover to cover, then, quickly educates one in ethics.

Competitors to This Book

The state of modern theology calls for an analysis of two competitors to Calvin. Since Antinomianism and Natural Law dominate Christendom, and since without a proper dismissal of these ideas, Calvin’s Law-ethic may remain in doubt, a somewhat brief critique of each follows.

Antinomianism

Dispensational Version

Unlike Calvin, many theologians today make themselves ethically unhelpful by lopping off the Mosaic portion of the Lord’s Word. They have antinomian (i.e., against the Law) tendencies at least toward this portion of God’s Law.18 They rely heavily on passages such as Galatians 3:24–25, “Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor”; Romans 10:4, “For Christ is the end of the law”; and especially Romans 6:14, “for you are not under law but under grace.”19 From these they reason that Moses’ statutes are morally irrelevant to the New Covenant Christian:

The specific provisions of the Mosaic law in Exodus–Deuteronomy were intended to apply directly only to Israel at that time.20

Simply put, the New Testament explicitly presents the Old Testament Mosaic law in its entirety as abrogated and replaced by a similar law, the law of Christ, which places greater premium on dependence on the indwelling Holy Spirit.21

The entire Mosaic law comes to fulfillment in Christ, and this fulfillment means that this law is no longer a direct and immediate source of, or judge of, the conduct of God’s people. Christian behavior, rather, is now guided directly by “the law of Christ.”22

From these quotes, though, we see that they do not leave us without ethical guidance. They are not antinomian in the sense of allowing anarchy or unrestraint. There is still a law for the New Covenant believer, the Law of Christ. This law is the New Testament’s codification of the eternal moral law of God. The Law of Moses was one codified form; the Law of Christ is its newer codified form. Therefore:

We should approach the New Testament with the assumption that whatever is not re-introduced and re-instated in the New Covenant is no longer in effect.23

We are bound only to that [of the Mosaic law] which is clearly repeated within New Testament teaching.24

The code found in Moses was tailored to that specific people for that specific time. Thus, “While there is unity between the Testaments when it comes to moral directives [eternal moral principles], there is diversity between the Testaments when it comes to ethical directions [cultural applications of the eternal principles].”25 We know what laws of the Old Testament are eternal by their reintroduction into the New Testament. This, then, is one form of antinomianism, what one theologian called “dispensational antinomianism.”26

Latent Version

Another form, “latent antinomianism,”27 does not say that Christ ended all of Moses’ Law, but only certain laws. John Murray asked, “Are we not compelled to recognize that the New Testament . . . institutes a change from one set of canons to another, and that therefore there is not only development and addition, but reversal and abrogation?”28 The laws in which these theologians particularly find cessation are the civil laws: “It is conceivable that the progress of revelation would remove the necessity for the penal sanction. This is the case with the death penalty for adultery. And the same holds true for many other penal sanctions of the Mosaic economy.”29 “Such provisions of the Mosaic law,” Murray explains elsewhere, “are so closely bound up with an economy which has passed away as to its observance, that we could hold to the continuance of these provisions no more than we could hold to the continuance of the Mosaic economy itself.”30 Willem A. VanGemeren likewise teaches that the “civil laws, and the penal code have been abrogated.”31

The rationale for singling out the civil laws varies. As Murray said above, sometimes these laws are said to be uniquely tied to ancient Israel.32 Sometimes the additional revelation and greater working of the Spirit in the New Covenant make such severe punishments now unnecessary.33 Still other times a cleavage is made between the moral law and the civil law.34 Since “the moral law of God . . . was based on the character of God,”35 it remains; the civil law was not, therefore it vanishes.

Critique of Dispensational Version

Antinomianism’s failure should not surprise the biblical student. If the granting of the Law was gracious (Ps 119:29), what should we consider its abrogation? As the New Covenant exceeds the graciousness of the Old Covenant, we should not expect the New to abrogate the Mosaic Law. But beyond this prima facie problem, other difficulties confront Antinomianism.

First, the Dispensational version allows what most would consider atrocious acts. According to it, God has eternal principles that have differing outward codified forms, and believers are only obliged to that form under which they live. Moo puts it this way: “Indeed, we can confidently expect that everything within the Mosaic law that reflected God’s ‘eternal moral will’ for his people is caught up into and repeated in the ‘law of Christ.’”36 In other words, if a law is not repeated in the New Covenant, it is not God’s eternal law nor binding on today’s believer. But when we think about what Mosaic commandments are not repeated in the New Covenant, we wonder if Dispensationalism is serious about this hermeneutic. The law prohibiting sexual relations with your sister (Lev 18:9) is not repeated. Is this then now morally permissible? Statutes forbidding tripping blind people or cursing deaf people (Lev 19:14) are not repeated. Are we then free in Christ to trip and curse? Mosaic laws banning cross-dressing (Deut 22:5) and sexual relations with animals (Lev 18:23) find no place in the New Testament. Does the Law of Christ permit dressing as the opposite sex and having relations with beasts? Undoubtedly, Dispensationalists personally repudiate these practices; nevertheless, their interpretation scheme allows them.37

Second, Dispensationalism misunderstands the characteristics of the Law of Moses, and for this reason sees a great discontinuity between the ethic promulgated by Moses and the New Covenant ethic. This becomes obvious from Moo’s description of the New Covenant ethic:

The law of Christ “stands in Paul’s thought for those ‘prescriptive principles stemming from the heart of the gospel (usually embodied in the example and teachings of Jesus), which are meant to be applied to specific situations by the direction and enablement of the Holy Spirit, being always motivated and conditioned by love.’”38

This description of the Law of Christ contains five characteristics. However, each characteristic equally applies to the Mosaic Law:

(1) “Prescriptive principles stemming from the heart of the gospel . . .” In Romans 10:6–8, the apostle Paul quotes a passage from Moses (Deut 30:12–14) and then says that Moses here preached the same gospel as he preached. The Mosaic prescriptive principles stem from the heart of the gospel.

(2) “. . . usually embodied in the example and teachings of Jesus . . .” Jesus lived according to Mosaic principles (Matt 4:4, 7, 10 quoting Deut 6:13, 16; 8:3). He also teaches the Mosaic ethic in his own ministry: citing “Do not defraud” (Mark 10:19), which is the ethical principle of Deuteronomy 25:4 (see Luke 10:7; 1 Tim 5:18); and commanding his audience to “love your enemies” (Matt 5:44), echoing the instructions of Moses in Exodus 23:4–5. Jesus’ example and teachings embody the laws of Moses.

(3) “. . . which are meant to be applied to specific situations . . .” In Matthew 15:4, Jesus quotes the Mosaic prescriptive principle of honoring parents (Exod 20:12), and then quotes a Mosaic application of that principle (Exod 21:17; Lev 20:9). The Mosaic principles are meant to be applied to specific situations.

(4) “. . . by the direction and enablement of the Holy Spirit . . .” Obedience to the Law of Moses always required the Spirit’s power (Ezek 36:27; Rom 8:4). How else could Old Covenant saints like Joshua, David, and Daniel, whose natures were no less sinful than ours, have obeyed God’s laws?

(5) “. . . being always motivated and conditioned by love.” Love has always been the motivation to obey God, even during the Mosaic administration (Lev 19:18, 34; Deut 6:5; 10:12).

A proper understanding of the Law of Moses, therefore, shows it to have identical characteristics to the Law of Christ. Second Timothy 3:16–17 buttresses this conclusion. Since here Paul ascribes moral sufficiency to the Old Testament Scriptures, New Testament revelation could only reiterate Old Testament moral teachings.

In addition to allowing atrocious acts and misunderstanding Moses’ Law, Dispensationalism is subject to a third criticism: it misunderstands the New Testament phrase “Law of Christ,” not recognizing it as mediation terminology. For once Christ faithfully accomplished his earthly ministry, New Testament writers joyfully attach his title to well-known, well-established phrases. For example, all men are created as the image of God (Gen 1:26; Jas 3:9), and yet Paul speaks of our redemption as conformity to the image of Christ (Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49)—should we conclude that Paul speaks of another image altogether? Should we not rather understand Paul as using mediation terminology, that is, language emphasizing Christ’s mediatorial work in redeeming us back to God’s righteous image?

Here is another example: Christ is a mediatorial King. As uniquely God and man, he alone may mediate between God and man (1 Tim 2:5). As divine, kingly rule intrinsically belongs to him, but as the mediatorial God-man, this rule is bestowed on him. In other words, Christ, because of his obedience to the Father (John 10:18), secured this rule (Isa 53:11–12; Phil 2:8–9; Heb 2:9). Whereas God reigns over all (Ps 103:19), setting over mankind those magistrates whom he wills (Dan 5:21), and this in virtue of his creation (Jer 27:5–6), the mediatorial rule of Christ is “given” (Dan 7:14; Matt 28:18), “bestowed” (Luke 22:29), and “delivered” (Matt 11:27) to him by the Father. It takes place at a particular time.39 Therefore, God’s intrinsic rule and Christ’s mediatorial rule are formally different, and yet they are materially identical, that is, the people and bounds over which they rule are the same.40 God now mediates his kingdom through the Messiah. Consequently, we should not infer from the expression “kingdom of Christ” (Eph 5:5;41 cf. Col 1:13) that Christ rules over different people and different bounds than does the Father, any more than we should understand that a different Spirit is spoken of because in one place he is called the “Spirit of God” (Gen 1:2) and in others the “Spirit of Christ” (Rom 8:9;42 1 Pet 1:11). Alternate lingo must not derail proper theology.

Likewise, we should not infer two different law structures from two different designations. As with all kings, Christ rules his kingdom by way of laws. He reigns over all the peoples of the earth (Ps 2:8; Dan 7:14) by his righteous law (Isa 2:3–4; 11:4; 2 Thess 2:8; Rev 19:15, 21). It is the sword he wields to reclaim his rightful domain; it is the rod that brooks no compromise. About this, nineteenth century Covenanter pastor William Symington writes:

Laws are essential to dominion; it cannot exist long without them; and there can be no administration where they are entirely wanting. The Messiah is not without these; the Scriptures are the law of the Lord—a code at once righteous, suitable, extensive, and efficacious.43

Therefore, the “Law of Christ” (1 Cor 9:21;44 Gal 6:2) bears the same content as the Law of God. As the Law of God includes those laws given through Moses, so also does the Law of Christ. They differ only in name. The law of God’s kingdom can now bear the name of the King through whom God mediates his rule. Consequently, in regards to moral teaching, the Law of Christ is the Law of Moses.

Critique of Latent Version

The latent form of Antinomianism fares little better. First, it reasons poorly to separate the civil laws from the moral law. Walter C. Kaiser Jr. gives a number of passages to show that the moral aspects of the law take priority over the ceremonial and civil aspects.45 However, these passages only show so with regard to the ceremonial laws. In 1 Samuel 15:22–23, for instance, moral laws are set over burnt offerings, sacrifices, and the fat of rams. In Isaiah 1:11–17, moral laws are set against sacrifices; burnt offerings of rams; the fat of cattle; offering the blood of bulls, lambs, goats; incense; and new moon and Sabbath feasts. These passages say nothing of civil ordinances, but only ceremonial ones. The same is true of the other passages that Kaiser cites (Jer 7:21–23; Mic 6:8; Ps 51:16–17).46 And Murray is certain that the death penalty continues to exist for murder, while agnostic about its applicability to other crimes,47 but then acknowledges the New Testament’s teaching that crimes (plural!) merit the death penalty.48

Moreover, Latent Antinomianism arbitrarily sets apart the civil laws from the moral law. Theologians commonly categorize the laws of the Old Testament into moral, ceremonial, and civil categories. But why are the civil laws singled out from the moral laws? Why are never the familial laws, or economic laws, or ecclesiastical laws singled out? Why is there never a category scheme of moral, ceremonial, and familial? Because theologians recognize the Mosaic familial laws as simply those moral laws applicable to the family. They should recognize the same concerning the civil laws; they are those moral laws applicable to the civil realm. And so if the civil laws are part of the moral law, they are based on the eternal character of God and therefore continue to obligate in the New Covenant.49

Second, the New Testament expressly endorses the civil laws of Moses. Not only are they generally endorsed by Jesus’ and Paul’s comments (Matt 5:16–20; 2 Tim 3:16–17), but the New Testament particularly endorses them as well. Writing to Timothy, Paul emphasizes the political use of the Law (1 Tim 1:8–10). Certain laws of God, he says, are “not made for a righteous person” (i.e., the law-abiding citizen), but are for restraining the “lawless and insubordinate” persons in society. He gives some examples of the kinds of behavior God’s Law considers criminal: killing parents, murder, prostitution or adultery or bestiality, homosexuality, kidnapping, and lying and perjury.50 This political use of the Law, Paul assures us, is a “good” and “lawful” use (v. 8). For every penalty given by Moses, the writer to the Hebrews informs us, is “a just penalty” (Heb 2:2, NASB)—they are expressions of God’s moral stand-ards of justice. So the civil penalty prescribed, say, for homosexuality (Lev 20:13) is an ordinance of perfect justice, and for this reason Paul recognizes homosexuality as worthy of civil punishment (Rom 1:32).51 Moreover, in Matthew 15:3–6, Jesus rebukes the Pharisees and scribes for allowing their traditions to override the civil punishments listed in the Pentateuch (Exod 21:17; Lev 20:9). And lastly, when Paul stands before the tribunal of Governor Festus, he recognizes crimes (plural) that are deserving of death (Acts 25:8–11)—crimes involving capital offenses according to Jewish laws (Acts 23:29; 24:6)—a recognition he certainly would not have made for unjust penal laws.

So contrary to the claims of Latent Antinomianism, the civil punishments listed in God’s Law have not terminated. As criminal behavior has not ceased in the New Covenant era, God has not ended his ordained means of dealing with crime. Indeed, Romans 12:19—13:4 teaches us that civil rulers are the servants of God, who do “not bear the sword in vain” (13:4) but have been appointed to execute his wrath upon evil doers; and God by no means leaves it up to man to determine what his wrath might be. Additionally, the requirement of penal precision (Prov 17:15; Deut 17:20) makes adhering to God’s instructions absolutely necessary. Calvin’s words are right on target: “And this is worthy of observation, that those who are armed with the sword, must not go out of the way on either side one tittle, but faithfully execute whatever God prescribes.”52 All of Scripture, even God’s civil penalties, is useful for ethical instruction (2 Tim 3:16–17). Throwing out that portion of Scripture given to instruct us in the punishment of criminals is done to our own peril, as the evening news and overcrowded jails daily declare. The ancient sage must have seen our day when he wrote: “Where there is no revelation [of God], the people cast off restraint” (Prov 29:18).

Antinomianism, we have seen, falls to the ground. Not only does it allow atrocious acts, but its attempts at invalidating Old Testament laws spring from a misunderstanding of both the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ. Furthermore, its attempt to keep some laws but throw out others fails due to faulty reasoning and to an oversight of New Testament teaching. All Scripture is inspired of God, making its every word useful for ethical instruction (Matt 4:4; 2 Tim 3:16–17); every jot and tittle of Moses comes into the New Covenant (Matt 5:18) unless Christ says otherwise. Like the saints of old, we declare God’s Law liberating (Jas 1:25; 2:12; cf. Ps 119:45) and life-giving (Matt 19:17; cf. Deut 4:1). The Christian’s attitude should be that of the psalmist: “Oh, how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day” (Ps 119:97). We do not manifest maturity by ignoring the wisdom given to us by Omniscience. On the contrary, turning aside from any of God’s commandments is to praise the wicked (Prov 28:4) and “to go after other gods to serve them” (Deut 28:14). If we heed our Lord’s testimonies, we shall understand more than all of our teachers (Ps 119:99). Dear Christian, “keeping the commandments of God is what matters” (1 Cor 7:19), “for this is man’s all” (Eccl 12:13).

Natural Law

Though Antinomianism seeks to ignore portions of God’s Word, we now encounter a philosophy that makes all of God’s Word unnecessary for ethical direction. Seeking an alternate route for moral guidance, Natural Law is defined as

the moral order inscribed in the world and especially in human nature, an order that is known to all people through their natural faculties (especially reason and/or conscience) even apart from supernatural divine revelation that binds morally the whole of the human race.53

As critics have shown, though, the Natural Law ethic commits the naturalistic fallacy, erroneously moving from what is the case in nature to what morally ought to be the case. But what gives nature this kind of moral authority? Without authority, obligation cannot exist.

Some advocates of nature, however, appeal to the Bible and to the God of the Bible for this natural order’s authority. J. Budziszewski, for example, says that “the Bible itself testifies to the reality of the natural law,”54 and that Natural Law derives its “authority from God alone.”55 David VanDrunen teaches that “natural law need not be considered a godless or autonomous law—indeed, it should not be. . . . [T]he natural law is in fact given by God and bears its authority from him”;56 therefore “appealing to natural law . . . [is] ultimately to the authority of God the Creator.”57 So when Natural Law is defined as known “apart from supernatural divine revelation,” what is meant is God’s verbal revelation, whether spoken or written.58

But if these Natural theologians appeal to the Bible and to the God of the Bible to give authority to their ethic, why not seek the entire ethic from his Word? To this question they have at least two replies. First, a common ethical standard is needed for the common social and political realms enjoyed by both believers and unbelievers. “The character of the civil kingdom59 as a common realm calls for a moral standard that is common to all human beings, and this is what natural law is.”60 Scripture’s ethical guidance, on the other hand, is for believers only: “Biblical moral instructions are given to people who are redeemed and are given as a consequence of their redemption,”61 and therefore, “Scripture is not the appropriate moral standard for the civil kingdom.”62 T. David Gordon concurs: “The Bible is sufficient to guide the human-as-covenanter, but not sufficient to guide the human-as-mechanic, the human-as-physician, the human-as businessman, the human-as-parent, the human-as-husband, the human-as-wife, or the human-as-legislator.”63 And discussing the topic of homosexuality, Budziszewski writes:

Among activists who want to keep the “hetero” in “sexuality,” a consensus is developing that we need a “public philosophy,” a way to speak wisdom to the people. It is pretty much taken for granted that means something different from quoting Scripture to our fellow citizens; they don’t all believe in the Bible, those who say they believe it interpret it in diverse ways, and they are suspicious of anything that looks like “forcing one’s religious opinions upon others.”64

VanDrunen likewise asks, “And what if . . . my neighbor is not a Christian and does not accept Scripture as a moral authority? Do I tell her that if she does not submit to the Scriptures then she has no right to participate in the political process?”65

Second, they say the Bible itself endorses Natural Law. Budziszewski was quoted earlier as saying “the Bible itself testifies to the reality of the natural law.”66 VanDrunen, who titles his book A Biblical Case for Natural Law, says “that natural law is taught in Scripture and should be affirmed in Christian theology.”67 He notes “that when God’s people [in the Bible] . . . interacted with others in the civil kingdom, they did so by appealing to a common, natural moral standard rather than to the particular special revelation divinely given to their covenant community.”68 He gives the examples of the pagan Abimelech, who believed that polyandry was simply a thing that should not be done (Gen 20:9); of Moses’ father-in-law, Jethro, who advised that the fear of God should be a criterion for electing judges (Exod 18:21); and of Job, who was deterred from unjustly treating his slaves by considering the notion of a common humanity (Job 31:13–15).69 In all of these examples, appeal is made to common moral notions, not to any word from God. Furthermore, Natural theologians claim that Paul’s teaching of the law written on human hearts (Rom 2:14–15) “is a natural law because human nature itself proclaims this law and judges whether it has been kept.”70

Critique: Misunderstands Scripture’s Commonality

Though Natural Law has a prestigious pedigree, Christians should nevertheless shun its teachings for three major reasons. First, it misunderstands the common obligation of God’s Word. If natural theologians seek a common standard, they need look no further than Holy Writ. God’s voice, recorded for us in the Scriptures, binds all—believer and unbeliever. In Leviticus 18, for example, after God enumerates specific laws for Israel, he explains that it was the pagans failure to keep these same laws that caused their ejection from the land (vv. 24–30; cf. Deut 18:9–14). In prescribing to the Jews the civil penalty for blasphemy, God declares that his penalties are for the “stranger as well as him who is born in the land,” for “you shall have the same law for the stranger and for one from your own country” (Lev 24:16, 22).

Consider also God’s condemnation of pagan nations: for violations of the first commandment, God condemned Moab (Jer 48:13, 35), Babylon (Isa 14:13–20; 21:9; Jer 50:2; Hab 1:11), and Nineveh (Nah 1:14); of the second commandment, Babylon (Isa 21:9; Jer 50:2, 38; 51:17–18, 47, 52), Egypt (Ezek 30:13), and Nineveh (Nah 1:14); of the eighth commandment, Ammon (Jer 49:1), and Nineveh (Nah 3:1); and of the ninth commandment, Nineveh (Nah 3:1).

Likewise, the prophet Jeremiah speaks of the prosperity and adversity of nations—both for covenanted Israel and unbelieving nations—as dependent on their adherence to God’s law (Jer 18:7–11; cf. Deut 28). Paul could therefore summarize that “all the world” is “under the law” (Rom 3:19). Indeed, God’s “word” binds universal “man” (Deut 8:3; Matt 4:4).

Moreover, God’s revelation in nature and his revelation in word are, ethically speaking, identical. He reveals himself through the created order (Ps 19:1; Rom 1:19–20), man (Gen 1:26–27), and his Word (cp. Rom 7:12 and Lev 11:44; John 17:25; Mark 10:18). Each medium reveals the same God. And since he is our moral ideal (Lev 19:2; Matt 5:48; 1 Pet 1:15–16), each medium reveals the same moral teaching as well. Calvin notes this often:

We have taught that the knowledge of God, otherwise quite clearly set forth in the system of the universe and in all creatures, is nonetheless more intimately and also more vividly revealed in his Word.71

And yet nothing is set down there [in Ps 145] that cannot be beheld in his creatures. Indeed, with experience as our teacher we find God just as he declares himself in his Word.72

Now that inward law, which we have above described as written, even engraved, upon the hearts of all, in a sense asserts the very same things that are to be learned from the two Tables [of the Law].73

It is a fact that the law of God which we call the moral law is nothing else than a testimony of natural law and of that conscience which God has engraved upon the minds of men.74

[The Law] prescribes nothing which nature does not itself dictate to be most certain and most just, and which experience itself does not shew us to be more profitable, or more desirable than anything else.75

Throughout his writings, Calvin shows this with particular behaviors, such as familial love;76 offering military peace to a city before besieging it;77 jurisprudence procedures;78 honoring the elderly;79 laws of consanguinity;80 the subjection of women to the authority of men;81 and even the political order,82 which includes the punishment of fornication and adultery,83 and violations of the degrees of consanguinity.84 According to Calvin, then, nature and the Bible speak with one voice on these moral issues.

Surprisingly, modern Natural Law ethicists acknowledge this truth. Commenting on Romans 2:14–15, VanDrunen writes: “Paul makes it clear that the requirements of this natural law are essentially the same as those of the law of Moses.”85 Budziszewski similarly says that Natural Law “merely repeat[s] in cursive a small part of what God had already written in great block letters,” and that the law of conscience and the Law of Moses both define sin.86

So if the moral requirements in nature and in Scripture are the same, why must we restrict Scripture to believers? Whatever nature obliges on unbelievers, Scripture also obliges on them. Why would we expect these requirements to lose their obligation on unbelievers once they are written down? So at the very least, Natural Law advocates should have no problem with teaching God’s biblical demands to everybody.

Critique: Advocates a Perverted Ethic

The Bible teaches natural revelation, not natural law. By confusing these two distinct concepts,87 the Natural Law ethic results in teaching a perverted ethic. God does indeed reveal himself through the natural created order and through the very makeup of man (see proof-texts above). This revelation of God and of his standards are “clearly seen, being understood” by all (Rom 1:20). Calvin says that “men cannot open their eyes without being compelled to see him”88—“even the most untutored and ignorant persons”;89 and concerning the human makeup, Calvin writes that “a sense of divinity is by nature engraven on human hearts.”90 But before generalizing too hastily,91 Van Til reminds us that “Calvin makes a sharp distinction between the revelation of God to man and man’s response to that revelation.”92 These two concepts vastly differ. It is one thing to say that nature reveals God’s righteous requirements and therefore all men know them, it is another thing altogether to advocate men follow this natural revelation apart from God’s Word.93 Biblical authors knew better than to advocate the latter.

Consider the situation before the Fall. Even then God gives his authoritative interpretations of nature. He tells Adam who he is, that is, the very image of God (Gen 1:26–27). God declares to Adam his mission in life, that is, to have dominion over the earth (Gen 1:26, 28; 2:15). By the tree of the knowledge of good and evil God explains to Adam how to accomplish this mission. Van Til writes:

God identifies one tree among many in order to indicate to man his task on earth. Man’s task is to cultivate the earth and subdue it. He can do so only if he thinks and acts in obedience to his Maker. So his obedience must be tested. . . . [H]e needs a special supernatural test at the outset. He needs to learn by way of one example what he is to do with all the facts of history.94

Man has never been left alone to interpret himself and the world around him. The need for the coordination of word and nature “is inherent in the human situation.”95 To separate the two will not only bear no fruit, but it reenacts the sin of Adam by interpreting nature (in his case, the tree) independently of God’s Word.

Now after the Fall, now that our minds have become futile, darkened, ignorant, and blind (Eph 4:17–18), should we think that God’s interpretations of nature are unnecessary? Let Calvin’s reflections on man’s fallen condition expose the folly of such a consideration: “the whole man is overwhelmed—as by a deluge—from head to foot, so that no part is immune from sin and all that proceeds from him is to be imputed to sin. As Paul says, all turnings of the thoughts to the flesh are enmities against God [Rom. 8:7], and are therefore death [Rom. 8:6].”96

As nature reveals things unregenerate men dislike (e.g., that they cannot cheat on their taxes; that they cannot have sexual relations outside of marriage) and even things they fear (e.g., God’s wrath), they are motivated to intentionally misinterpret nature. Their psyche cannot allow them to construe it rightly; there is too much at stake. Therefore, they “suppress the truth”97 (Rom 1:18), rationalizing and gerrymandering it, deceiving themselves both about the truth revealed in nature and about their intention to deceive themselves.98 They simply will not handle nature properly. Their resultant interpretations of nature are lies (Rom 1:25).99 It cannot be otherwise, for the noetic effects of sin are total. As a result, natural revelation is given to us “in vain,” says Calvin, for it can “in no way lead us into the right path.”100

We must bear in mind, consequently, two truths: (1) fallen people gain a true knowledge of God from nature, but (2) they always pervert this knowledge. About these two, Calvin writes:

John speaks in this sense: “The light still shines in the darkness, but the darkness comprehends it not” [John 1:5]. In these words both facts are clearly expressed. First, in man’s perverted and degenerate nature some sparks still gleam. These show him to be a rational being, differing from brute beasts, because he is endowed with understanding. Yet, secondly, they show this light choked with dense ignorance, so that it cannot come forth effectively.101

So though “the knowledge of good and evil is indeed imprinted by nature on men,”102 this knowledge, as Calvin says above, “cannot come forth effectively.” Sin has not and cannot obliterate our knowledge of good and evil received through nature—natural theologians rightly teach this truth. Fallen men, however, “suppress the truth [gained from natural revelation] in unrighteousness” (Rom 1:18)—natural theologians do not consider the full implications of this truth.

The consequences of this suppression, thinks Calvin, are fatal for Natural Law: The unregenerate man, the man who ignores the Bible, is “inconsistent with every decision of reason, and alien to the duties of men”;103 “they quickly choked by their own depravity the seed of right knowledge, before it grew up to ripeness”;104 all of their undertakings, like the “liberal sciences, and acquaintance with languages, are in a manner profaned in every instance,”105 so that “in all their reasoning faculties they miserably fail”; “men, by their own guidance, are led only to vanity and lies”; man’s “mind is so completely overwhelmed by the thraldom of ignorance, that any portion of light which remains in it is quenched and useless”; “all their understanding is nothing else than mere vanity”; “conscience perverts every decision, so as to confound vice with virtue”; and any knowledge they have for regulating their lives “passes away without yielding any advantage.”106 Man’s natural knowledge is, in a word, morally worthless. Natural Law’s failure to be a viable mechanism for ethical living causes Calvin to declare forthrightly, “The purpose of natural law,107 therefore, is to render man inexcusable.”108 In other words, it functions negatively to take away man’s excuse of ignorance (Rom 1:20), not positively as an independent moral guide.

And though natural theologians recognize man’s proclivities to pervert natural revelation, incredibly they still encourage men to approach nature alone: “There is a natural sense of rightness and wrongness that resides in the conscience (Rom. 2:14–15). Although this sense of right and wrong has been effaced by sin (1:32), it is nevertheless able to serve as the moral guide.”109 But can it serve as a moral guide to those whose sense of right and wrong has been “effaced”? VanDrunen admits that “man still knows [natural law], though in a corrupted fashion” and “Sinful human beings will constantly pervert and reject the teaching of natural law.”110 But should we advance a “corrupted” and “perverted” ethic? And though Budziszewski admits that unregenerate man suppresses God’s revelation in nature, he never explains how they can properly handle it; he simply says that they know it.111 But should we encourage men to follow a suppressed and mishandled revelation? We see then, by divorcing word and nature—separating what God has joined together—natural theology, in effect, advocates a depraved ethic.

Conversely, the Lord’s sacred Word demands the Lord’s sacred Word for ethics. Overcoming men’s depravity requires the corrective gospel. Nature reveals to the sinner the wrath of God (Rom 1:18), not redemptive grace. Sinful man finds God’s saving message solely in his Word (Rom 10:14–17). Also, God’s Word objectively checks our interpretations of nature. “Man’s Creator has provided the linguistic framework for ‘exegeting’ the truth of God in natural revelation and in man himself.”112 So though natural ethicists mean well when they counsel us to follow our hearts, the Lord notifies us that “he who trusts in his own heart is a fool” (Prov 28:26), for our hearts deceive us all too easily (Jer 17:9). Consequently, God bids us to follow his commandments so that we will not follow the perversions of our nature (Num 15:39), even as Jethro knew that his advice to Moses should only be followed if God approved (Exod 18:23).

When men do not filter their experiences through God’s Word (a la Deut 6:6, 8), their studies of nature teach that same-sex civil unions should be recognized by the civil authorities,113 or that all marital sexual relations be “ordered per se to the procreation of human life,”114 or that sheepherding is a loathsome profession (Gen 46:34), or that men who survive snake bites are gods (Acts 28:3–6). Foolishness inevitably results from theories not founded on Christ’s rock-words (Matt 7:24–27). “Yet hence it appears,” agrees Calvin, “that if men were taught only by nature, they would hold to nothing certain or solid or clear-cut, but would be so tied to confused principles as to worship an unknown god [cf. Acts 17:23].”115

Critique: Tends to Idolatry

To understand this third criticism we must understand authority-hierarchies. In life we obey many authorities, ranging from personal authorities like fathers, policemen, teachers, and employers to impersonal authorities like sense perception, our faculties (rational, emotional, volitional), and principles of thought (logical, scientific, moral). How we arrange these authorities says something about our moral philosophy: whichever authority we reckon the ultimate and most authoritative is our god.

A righteous moral philosophy makes Yahweh the ultimate authority, for there is none greater (Heb 6:13). Accordingly, all our words and deeds must be done according to his authority (Col 3:17), subordinating all other authorities. Whatever is not brought “into captivity to the obedience of Christ” is not neutral but rather “against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor 10:5; cf. Matt 12:30). Wishing to avoid the sin of our first parents, therefore, we screen all of our thinking and doing through his authoritative Word (Deut 6:6, 8).

An idolatrous moral philosophy, on the other hand, makes something other than Yahweh the highest authority. We deify anything we make our ultimate authority. As ultimate, we believe it is self-author-izing.116 It requires no proof from any extraneous source; if it needed vindication from something else then it would not be ultimate. In the nature of the case, then, we treat it with unquestioning allegiance.

Moreover, we can exalt anything to an ultimate status—whether personal deities or impersonal principles. And though few have trouble seeing the idolatry of placing Baal, Molech, or Allah before Yahweh, we should see it no less idolatrous when impersonal principles are elevated above him. Additionally, it makes no difference whether these authorities are always unlawful or whether they are in themselves lawful. Authorities that are always unlawful to follow include personal deities like Baal or Allah, or impersonal principles like “We may lie in order to win arguments.”

But to see how authorities lawful in themselves become idolatrous requires more judicious reasoning. Take, for example, the principle to love your family (Titus 2:4)—a good principle in itself. However, when we place this love above Yahweh it becomes sinful (Deut 13:6–10; 1 Sam 2:29; Matt 10:37). Again, seeking help from others is in itself a morally permissible principle (Deut 14:28–29; 2 Sam 10:11; Luke 10:40), but when our hearts trust in man’s help more than the Lord’s help it becomes immoral (Jer 17:5). Laboring to gain financial profit is another honorable principle (Deut 8:18; Prov 10:4; 13:22; 31:10–31; Eph 4:28), but we idolize money when we place it before the Lord. Commenting on Jesus’ warning, “You cannot serve God and mammon” (Matt 6:24; Luke 16:13), Frame says, “Jesus personifies [money], as if it were the name of a god, enhancing the allusion to the first commandment.”117 Our reasoning faculties, moreover, are a gift of God, but when they are used as ultimate authorities they violate God’s instructions (Prov 3:5–6), as Calvin wisely understands:

For [the philosophers] set up reason alone as the ruling principle in man, and think that it alone should be listened to; to it alone, in short, they entrust the conduct of life. But the Christian philosophy bids reason give way to, submit and subject itself to, the Holy Spirit so that the man himself may no longer live but hear Christ living and reigning within him [Gal. 2:20].118

We have other gods before Yahweh when we serve anything instead of him, even things lawful in themselves.

Non-Christian philosophers make this especially noticeable. For if God condemns the practice of placing other authorities above his, then he all the more condemns practices that have no regard for his authority whatsoever. When philosophers encourage us to follow their ethic, they usually enjoin on us an ultimate principle. Often this principle can be found in the Bible, but by extracting the principle from biblical authority, they make an idol of it. Kant, for instance, says that a good action stems from a sense of duty; any action looking to beneficial consequences is an immoral action on Kant’s terms. Being motivated to behavior out of a sense of duty is quite biblical (Eccl 12:13; Luke 17:10; Rom 13:8). Kant, though, extracts it from God’s authority (contrary to 2 Cor 10:5; Col 3:17 et al.), seeing no need of him to make his ultimate principle obligatory. It is self-authorizing, thinks Kant. Egoism’s ultimate principle says “Act in your own best interest”—another biblical principle (Deut 6:24; Ps 1:2–3; Matt 6:20; 1 Tim 4:8). Utilitarianism exalts as its highest principle “Act so as to maximize happiness”—again, a Scriptural principle (cp. Deut 6:24 & Deut 28; Ps 2:10–12 & Ps 144:15). Yet, as with Kant, egoism and utilitarianism find no need for Christ in their ethic, and in this they err. These philosophies are no less idolatrous than Islam: “False worship may not involve rites or ceremonies, but it always involves the attribution of aseity [self-authorization] to something.”119 Yet Yahweh requires exclusive ultimate allegiance: “You shall have no other gods before Me” (Exod 20:3).120

With this background, Natural Law’s idolatrous tendency becomes clear. Though it does place nature under God’s authority, as when it says “the natural law is in fact given by God and bears its authority from him,”121 this is not consistently maintained. VanDrunen, for instance, sometimes appeals to common, agreed-upon notions to make a moral case:

By arguing that particular actions are wrong because they tend to promote killing or stealing (which most people admit are bad things), or by arguing that particular actions are right because they tend to promote life or the protection of property (which most people admit are good things), one may construct natural law arguments that have a certain chance for effectiveness.122

He sometimes makes these common notions the basis of moral arguments.123 He does not attempt to prove them, but simply uses these notions as building blocks to prove grander conclusions. These notions, then, are treated as authoritative in themselves. He obviously is not resting them on God’s authority because then they would not be common124 (not to mention he would lose the unbeliever’s interest).

However, Van Til rightly says that “the ‘common notions’ of men are sinful notions.”125 Take, for example, the principle “You shall not murder.” What unbelievers and believers understand by this principle differs greatly. Unbelievers assume an impersonal principle that binds all without needing proof; believers, on the other hand, assume an expression of a personal God who alone makes the principle binding. They agree on the principle only formally. Our witness to the God of Scripture “is not presented, however, if we grant that God the Holy Spirit in a general testimony to all men approves of interpretations of this world or of aspects of this world which ignore Him and set Him at naught.”126 Unbelievers, consequently, interpret the principle unrighteously, and VanDrunen does as well when he has common agreement with them on these notions.

VanDrunen, though, seems unbothered by this conclusion. He feels justified in ignoring God’s authority in such situations:

And what if . . . my neighbor is not a Christian and does not accept Scripture as a moral authority? . . . I would first of all wish my neighbor to put faith in Christ and believe the Scriptures. But even if she does not, I still would rather she be pro-life in her voting and personal behavior . . . for the sake of a relative social peace and justice.127

The unbeliever’s internal allegiance, he thinks, is secondary to social peace and justice. VanDrunen makes similar statements in another article:

If we do attempt to make such [common notion] arguments in a careful and civil way, by God’s grace we may make some progress toward moving society in a more just direction.

And:

As Christians go into the public square and take up their responsibility of interacting with unbelievers for the sake of civil peace and cultural progress, natural law provides an important and helpful resource.128

However, we cannot make use of sinful arguments to obtain righteous goals, as Paul forbids us to do evil that good may come (Rom 3:8). God’s work must be done by God’s ways.129

We find, then, an inconsistency concerning the authority of Natural Law. Sometimes God’s authority backs the theory, sometimes his authority is implicitly denied. The cause of this inconsistency is not difficult to discern. Appealing to God’s authority has its advantages: it avoids the naturalistic fallacy, a fallacy so common and fearlessly wielded by secular Natural Law ethicists; it avoids idolatry, that is, advocating an authority independent from God’s authority; and it creates a sympathetic hearing from theists who are predisposed to God’s authority. However, it does have a major disadvantage: it loses its common appeal—which is what attracts some theologians to Natural Law—since unbelievers do not accept God’s authority.130 Conversely, making Natural Law rest on an authority independent from God’s authority has an advantage as well: it creates a sympathetic hearing from unbelievers. Although the disadvantages are great: without God’s authority, it commits the naturalistic fallacy; it makes Natural Law idolatrous; and it loses (or at least should lose) its Christian support.

As a result, natural theologians run from pillar to post trying to vindicate Natural Law: We need an agreed-upon standard to rule society, they say. But what gives this standard binding authority? God, they say. Can we then appeal to his Word since we appeal to his authority? No, because we need an agreed-upon standard. What gives the standard authority? God. Can we use his Word since we use his authority? No, we need agreed-upon standards. And on and on it goes.131

Frame appropriately laments, “Too often, in ethical debate, Christians sound too much like unbelievers. . . . I believe they almost inevitably give this false impression when they are reasoning according to natural law alone.”132 Unbelievers’ interpretations of nature are the last thing with which we ought to seek common agreement, for “the world by its wisdom knows not God and not knowing God it knows not the world.”133 As Christ forcefully declares that whatever is not built on his words will crumble (Matt 7:24–27), Natural Law is no exception. We have seen it commit three major flaws: (a) Confining biblical instruction to believers, it contradicts the Bible’s own claims of itself as universally binding (Rom 3:19); (b) separating nature from Scripture’s gospel and Scripture’s interpretations of nature, it leads to a corrupt moral philosophy; and worst of all, (c) equivocating on its authority, it sometimes bases itself on something other than God’s authority, making an idol out of nature—worshiping the creation rather than the Creator (Rom 1:25). Furthermore, we should not advocate a philosophy that keeps God’s Word from people—knowing that when God withholds his Word, leaving people to natural revelation alone, he intends to leave them in their sins (Acts 14:16; 17:30). We should rather advocate a philosophy that conveys the words bringing happiness to a community (Prov 29:18). Christians should always, like brave young David, encounter the world “in the name of the Lord of hosts” (1 Sam 17:45). We must not hesitate between two philosophies, but must follow the exhortation of Elijah: “if the Lord is God, follow Him” (1 Kgs 18:21). Dear Christian, always avoid doctrines that encourage you to leave your Bible aside; but rather, in every matter “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly” (Col 3:16).

Benefits of This Book

So to a civilization content, even eager, to live by bread alone, the voice of God must be proclaimed, indeed, his every proceeding word. Christians must resist tendencies to truncate or supplant heavenly instruction; as Calvin warns, “God declares that all are apostates who do not confine themselves to the simplicity of the Law.”134

Weak ethical teaching not only betrays our Lord but also handicaps our behavior. On the one hand, the authoritative generalities of Antinomianism tend to immobilize us. Not that there is anything wrong with divine general directions; whatever the Lord speaks to us ought to inspire our highest honors. Such was the human situation before Mosaic revelation. “When God reveals his will at a general level, we should try to implement the specifics by our sanctified human wisdom.”135 However, the more human reasoning involved the more susceptibility to error. What a blessing it is, therefore, when God himself reasons out from the generalities. “When he reveals his will more specifically, we should be grateful for that additional guidance.”136 It has been the practice of modern American Christendom, though, in cutting off Mosaic details, to offer the world only generalities. As a result, few today look to Christians for answers to economic, parental, educational, social, or political problems. Since ambiguities and generalities offer little solace to those in ethical entanglements, Christianity is too often tossed into the trash heap of irrelevancy.

When the thought arises, for example, of a burglar breaking into your home, you want more instructions than “protect your family.” Does this protection involve lethal force? What if it is clear that the burglar only wants your jewelry and intends no bodily harm? One of the bullet-point entries in this book summarizing Calvin’s comments on Exodus 22:1–4 is particularly helpful:

The exception concerning the thief in the night (vv. 2–3a) is parenthetical to the overall passage. A man who kills a thief in the night is free from punishment because he could not see the behavior of the thief and because it is likely that a thief in the night will resort to violence since in the night he may only enter a house by violent damage. But if the thief is discovered in the day, when sunlight exposes the criminal, the killing is accounted murder and penalized by execution, for killing is too severe for theft.

What should a father do whose daughter has been seduced by a man? The advice “flee sexual immorality” is much too general (and too late!). Inquiring fathers may refer to Calvin’s comments on Exodus 22:16–17, summarized in this book as follows:

Here God shows his care for young females, who, being deceived by a man, loses her virginity, with the seducer refusing to covenant with her.

To prevent her despairing abandonment to prostitution (since she has lost her virginity), God requires the man to marry her. The man must also give her a dowry from his own property, lest if he should cast her off, she should not go away penniless.

The father, however, can refuse her suitor while yet keeping the dowry.

Not only do these details instruct a society on how to deter carefree seductions and abandonments, but they also mobilize a concerned father to bring about the best results for his daughter from a potentially ruinous situation.

We could ask more about other matters that confront us everyday: What should be the criteria of electing civil rulers? Are candidates’ religious convictions relevant? What should be our attitude toward policies that debase our money? Those who have retired, who have saved money for this stage in their life, find their money worth less through no fault of their own. Are they justified for resenting such economic policies? And what of civil rulers, whose duty it is to protect the innocent and deter crime? The general dictum, “Rulers should be just,” offers little help to them. How do they deter dog attacks, car theft, rape, or false accusations? What should they do, if anything, with criminals who seek asylum in churches? What should be done to those who carelessly start a fire that destroys another’s property? Is any penalty permissible to captured terrorists? Those charged with protecting citizens want more direction than “the punishment must fit the crime.” Will not he deserve punishment who limits counsel to such vagueness!

Generalities give the parent, the voter, the retired, and the magistrate little direction for the issues of life, and therefore little propulsion for action. Bahnsen said it well: “Even today, when God’s people get embroiled in moral dilemmas, they desire more inspired law (guidance), not less. It is surely no blessing to be left only with broad generalities: e.g., see how many people are blessed and happy by trying to play a basketball game under the single rule of ‘Play fair’!”137 God indeed gave through Moses many detailed instructions “for our good” (Deut 6:24; cf. 10:13).138

On the other hand, the unauthoritative specifics of Natural Law conduces uncertainty. Just any philosophy supplying specifics will not do. For even when its conclusions are true (e.g., that abortions are immoral), our consciences have little peace until we know God approves. Calvin put it this way, “men’s consciences shall by no other means be quiet, that they safely do that which they do, than when being taught by the Word of God, they determine that they do nothing without his commandment and conduct.”139 To God we admit: “Great peace have those who love Your law” (Ps 119:165).

In conclusion, this book benefits the reader by supplying ethical specifics, mobilizing us from idleness caused by ignorance; and by supplying the Lord’s specifics, driving away uncertainty and giving peace to our troubled souls. A third benefit, as said previously, is it provides an expedited ethics education. For since God’s Law covers the whole of righteous ethics, and since the Mosaic Law is the most detailed and concentrated formulation of God’s Law, and since Calvin (one of the best theologians God has ever given his church) has beneficially organized the Mosaic Law, this summary of Calvin gives moral instructions on the whole of our duty. Indeed, “it is an inestimable benefit when God shows us His will,”140 but as God’s will is meaty, this book, in a way, “cuts up the meat” for Christ’s little ones.

The Reformed faith is renowned for its moral concerns: “From [Calvin’s] time to the present Calvinism has meant a peculiar seriousness about Christianity and its ethical implications.”141 As loyal subjects of the King, we wish to see his rule duly recognized over all the earth. But let us not entertain the foolish thought that this can come without knowledge of God’s Law. As the King informs us, his kingdom will not come apart from his will being done on earth as it is in heaven (Matt 6:10). “So then do not be foolish,” dear reader, but read on to “understand what the will of the Lord is” (Eph 5:17, NASB). A confused and broken world awaits divine direction.

GOD’S WILL BE DONE

1. Gary North, Publisher’s Preface to Covenant Enforced, xi.

2. Calvin, Institutes, 2.8.5.

3. Calvin, Institutes, 2.8.4.

4. Fisher, History, 329.

5. In addition to Fisher’s book, see: Douglas F. Kelly, The Emergence of Liberty in the Modern World: The Influence of Calvin on Five Governments from the 16th Through 18th Centuries (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 1992); Nathaniel S. McFetridge, Calvinism in History: A Political, Moral and Evangelizing Force (Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1882; reprint, Birmingham, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2004); A. Mervyn Davies, Foundation of American Freedom (New York: Abingdon, 1955); Rev. W.P. Breed, D.D., Presbyterians and the Revolution (Trustees of the Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1876; new ed., Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2008).

6. Encyclopedia Britannica, s.v. “Calvin and Calvinism,” 15:450.

7. Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 57.

8. Meacham, “End of Christian America.”

9. God reveals his will through his Word, even that portion written by Moses. David and Paul clearly equate the Law with God’s will (Ps 40:8; Rom 2:18). Though God has a secret will whereby he providentially causes all things (Eph 1:11), he also has a revealed will that he expects us to follow: “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law” (Deut 29:29). Here Moses equates God’s Law to his revealed will—the revelation of his moral will for our lives. Calvin did the same: “it is the perfection of a good and holy life, when we live in obedience to his will. . . . that will which is made known in the Law” (Commentaries, Heb 13:21). Elsewhere God’s will is equated with Paul’s commandments (1 Thess 4:2–3) and with good works (Col 1:9–10; Heb 13:21), and contrasted with fleshly and lustful living (1 Pet 4:2; 1 John 2:17).

10. Calvin, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses.

11. Though Calvin does not include General Principle headers in his commentaries, they have been added to assist the reader.

12. Calvin, Institutes, 2.8.10.

13. Calvin, Commentaries, Exod 20:13; Deut 5:17.

14. Calvin, Institutes, 2.8.9.

15. Calvin, Institutes, 4.8.6.

16. Calvin, Commentaries, 2 Tim 3:17.

17. Calvin, “Preface of John Calvin to the Four Last Books of Moses,” xvii.

18. God’s Law includes all of God’s Word from Genesis to Revelation. “The Law” sometimes refers to the five books of Moses (Matt 5:17; Luke 16:16; 24:44; Rom 3:21b), sometimes to the entire Old Testament (Matt 5:18; John 10:34; 15:25; Rom 3:19; 1 Cor 14:21), and sometimes to the entire Bible (Isa 2:3; Jas 1:22–25). Accordingly, all of Scripture is useful for ethical instruction (Rom 15:4; 1 Cor 10:11; 2 Tim 3:16–17), every single word (Deut 8:3; Matt 4:4).

19. Other passages used are 2 Cor 3; Phil 3:7–9.

20. Grudem, Politics, 84; cf. 27, 66, 192. See my review of Grudem’s book at www.annodomini.co.

21. Strickland, Five Views, 163; cf. 276.

22. Moo, Five Views, 343; cf. 346.

23. Morey, Relate, 144.

24. Moo, Five Views, 376; cf. 172.

25. Morey, Relate, 42.

26. Bahnsen, By This Standard, 299. “This form of antinomianism is called ‘dispensational’ because it stands opposed to the law of the previous dispensation (the Old Covenant law of Moses),” 299–300.

27. Bahnsen, By This Standard, 301. Though the word “antinomian” sometimes carries a pejorative connotation, nothing accusatory is meant here; it is simply a con-venient label for these schools of thought. I suppose Calvin and I would be “antinomian” to Orthodox Jews for not holding to Old Covenant ceremonial laws (according to Col 2:17; Heb 10:1 et al.).

28. Murray, Principles of Conduct, 15.

29. Murray, Principles of Conduct, 118; cf. 54, 119 and Collected Writings, 1:211–212.

30. Murray, Collected Writings, 1:211–212.

31. Willem A. VanGemeren, Five Views, 37.

32. Murray, Collected Writings, 1:211–212; cf. VanGemeren, Five Views, 53, 148.

33. Murray, Collected Writings, 1:212. Principles of Conduct, 118.

34. Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Five Views, 189–190. VanGemeren, Five Views, 148.

35. Kaiser, Five Views, 190.

36. Moo, Five Views, 370.

37. For a convincing critique of Dispensationalism, see The Bahnsen/Feinberg Debate—The Place of O.T. Law on the Life of the N.T. Believer, available from Covenant Media Foundation (mp3 audio), http://www.cmfnow.com/search.aspx?find=Bahnsen%2fFeinberg+Debate.

38. Moo, Five Views, 369. Moo is approvingly quoting Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians (Dallas: Word, 1990), 275–276, where Longenecker is quoting from one of his (Longenecker’s) own previous books.

39. Though at the birth of Jesus, he was declared a king (Matt 2:2; cf. Isa 9:6–7), and though his preaching was of a kingdom “at hand” (Matt 4:17; 10:7; Mark 1:14–15), and though he forcefully proclaimed that by exorcizing demons “the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Matt 12:28), these were but anticipatory of Jesus’ actual inauguration. They crescendoed the loud clash of his glorious resurrection. Christ occupied his throne when death could no longer hold him (Acts 2:30–31). And at his ascension, thereafter, when in the flesh beholding his Father, he was given his everlasting kingdom (Dan 7:13–14). From that enthronement he rules in the midst of his enemies, progressively making them his footstool (Ps 110:1–2; Eph 1:20–23; Heb 10:12–13).

40. Symington, Messiah the Prince, 67.

41. This verse even runs together “the kingdom of Christ and God.”

42. This verse actually interchanges the “Spirit of God” and the “Spirit of Christ.”

43. Symington, Messiah the Prince, 17.

44. This verse actually equates the “law of God” and the “law of Christ.”

45. Kaiser, Five Views, 189–190.

46. Kaiser’s position involves another difficulty when he says that “the civil and ceremonial laws functioned only as further illustrations of the moral law” (Five Views, 190). Does he really believe that the ceremonial laws were of a like kind (“illustrations”) with the moral laws? Or that the civil laws functioned similarly to the ceremonial laws?

47. Murray, Principles of Conduct, 118–122.

48. Murray, Principles of Conduct, 120.

49. Being moral, then, the civil laws apply to all peoples throughout all times. Recognizing this truth answers the teaching that the Mosaic civil laws were uniquely applicable to ancient Israel. Cf. Murray, Collected Writings, 1:211–212 and VanGemeren, Five Views, 53, 148.

50. Some of the passages Paul probably has in mind are Exod 21:12, 15, 16; 22:19; Lev 20:10, 13, 15–16; 24:17; Deut 19:15–21; 22:13–24; 24:7.

51. The phrase “deserving of death” in Scripture always refers to capital punishment by the State (e.g., Deut 17:6; 19:6; 21:22; Luke 23:15; Acts 23:29); it is this “righteous judgment of God” to which Paul refers. Additionally, the “such things” of Romans 1:32 refer to the homosexual practices listed back in vv. 26–27. The sins listed in the intermediary verses (vv. 28–31) are those that so often attend a society that openly embraces homosexual practices. Bahnsen nicely summarizes the syntax of the passage: “‘Being filled with’ in Rom 1:29 modifies ‘them’ in Rom 1:28, which is to say, the homosexuals of Rom 1:26, 27” (Homosexuality, 59n.113). Frame writes similarly: “Afterward [after Romans 1:24–27], Paul lists other sins that result from unbelief (vv. 28–32). But among all the sins listed in the chapter, homosexuality has a place of prominence” (DCL, 758).

52. Calvin, Commentaries, Num 31:14.

53. VanDrunen, Biblical Case, 1; cf. 14, 44, 49. J. Budziszewski defines it as the “moral principles that are both right for everybody and knowable to everybody by the ordinary exercise of human reason” (Written on the Heart, 109); and describes it thus: “Natural law . . . is built into the design of human nature and woven into the fabric of the normal human mind” (“Natural Law”). See my review of VanDrunen’s book at www.annodomini.co.

54. Budziszewski, “Natural Law.”

55. Budziszewski, Written on the Heart, 210.

56. VanDrunen, Biblical Case, 7.

57. VanDrunen, Biblical Case, 4.

58. Throughout Biblical Case, VanDrunen distinguishes Natural Law from “special revelation” (43, 63), “special divine revelation” (50–51, 53), “a sacred text” (43), and “Scripture” (65, 66).

59. “This civil kingdom pertains to temporal, earthly, provisional matters, not matters of ultimate and spiritual importance.” VanDrunen, Biblical Case, 24.

60. VanDrunen, Biblical Case, 35.

61. VanDrunen, Biblical Case, 39.

62. VanDrunen, Biblical Case, 38.

63. Gordon, “Insufficiency of Scripture.”

64. Budziszewski, Review of Homosexuality and American.

65. VanDrunen, “Anxious Kloosterman.”

66. Budziszewski, “Natural Law.”

67. VanDrunen, Biblical Case, 2.

68. VanDrunen, Biblical Case, 41.

69. VanDrunen, Biblical Case, 42–54.

70. VanDrunen, Biblical Case, 19.

71. Calvin, Institutes, 1.10.1.

72. Calvin, Institutes, 1.10.2.

73. Calvin, Institutes, 2.8.1.

74. Calvin, Institutes, 4.20.16.

75. Calvin, Commentaries, Deut 10:12.

76. Calvin, Commentaries, Num 35:19; Deut 28:53.

77. Calvin, Commentaries, Deut 20:10.

78. Calvin, Commentaries, Deut 17:6; 19:15.

79. Calvin, Commentaries, Lev 19:32.