PASTORAL AND SOCIAL ETHICS

Lecture Outline, part 1: Preface; Introduction and Apologetic

Orientation
By John M. Frame
Preface: Importance of Christian Ethics
1. A covenant servant of the Lord is one who has the word of God and does it, John
14:21.
2. All theological issues are questions of obedience and disobedience: What doctrine
faithfully communicates the truth?
3. The purpose of Scripture is ethical: Rom. 15:4, 2 Tim. 3:16-17
4. Importance for our witness to the world: the obvious bankruptcy of non-Christian
ethics, modernist ethics, in the face of great cultural preoccupation with ethical issues;
witness of life, Matthew 5:16.
Part One: Introduction and Apologetic Orientation
I. Terminology (Not a matter of life and death, but important for clarity of
communication)
A. Ethics and Theological Encyclopedia
1. Knowledge of God: A personal, covenantal relationship with God, involving
awareness of His self-revelation, an obedient or disobedient response to that
revelation, and the divine blessing or curse upon that response. [Biblical references
in DKG connecting knowledge with the ethical dimension]
2. Doctrine (didache, didaskalia): The word of God “in use” to create and deepen
that relationship. Application of the word to all of life. The point of this is not to
emphasize practice at the expense of theory, but to bring theory and practice
together as different forms of application.
a. Theory is not the basis of practice.
b. Theory, as opposed to practice, is not theology par excellence.
3. Theology: Doctrine.
4. Systematic Theology: Approach to theology that asks and answers questions of
the form “What does the whole Bible teach us about x?” As a theological
discipline, it involves application of Scripture, of both theoretical and practical
sorts.
5. Biblical Theology: Approach to theology that asks and answers questions of the
form “What can we learn about x from the History of Redemption?” Application
of the history of redemption to the Christian life.
6. Exegetical Theology: Approach to theology that asks “What can we learn about x
from this passage?” Also applicatory.
7. Ethics: Theology, viewed as a means of determining which human persons, acts,
and attitudes receive God’s blessing and which do not.
IIIM Magazine Online, Special Feature, July 26, 2001
2
a. Not a branch of theology, but equivalent to theology; for all theology answers
ethical questions. Often, however, theologians fail to emphasize adequately the
ethical dimensions of their work. Hence, ethics as a distinct discipline. But it’s
best not to think of it as distinct.
b. Alternative Definitions: “Study of right and wrong,” etc.
i. Advantage: Such definitions include non-Christian ethical systems within
their scope. It does seem odd to say, as our definition implies, that Plato
and Aristotle were not teachers of ethics.
ii. Reply: There is nothing wrong with using a broader definition of ethics in
certain contexts. For this course, however, I prefer a definition which sets
forth the essential nature of Christian ethics, and which exposes non-
Christian substitutes as debased, not only in content, but in method and
general concept as well.
B. Value-terms
1. Moral, ethical
a. These terms will be used synonymously in this course.
b. Each may be used in two ways:
i. Descriptively: Pertaining to the discipline of ethics (“That is an ethical, not
an aesthetic question.”)
ii. Normatively: Conforming to ethical norms (“There is an ethical
politician.”)
2. Immoral: Ethically bad or wrong.
3. Amoral:
a. Without moral standards.
b. Unwilling to think about moral issues in making life decisions.
4. Non-moral: Not a question of morality.
5. Moralistic: a very ambiguous term, which I shall almost never use. It tends to have
little purpose other than expressing disdain.
a. Trite or provincial in ethical attitude.
b. Self-righteous.
c. Legalistic: putting law in the role reserved for grace. (Legalism is also a term
that is often used imprecisely and as a club to beat up on others who merely
want to express a positive appreciation for God’s law.)
d. Putting too much emphasis on ethics or on the law.
e. Preaching ethics without adequate appreciation for the History of Redemption.
f. Failing to follow the methodology of biblico-theological extremists (as
expressed in publications such as the Kerux journal). Such extremists teach that
i. In preaching or teaching you should never use a biblical character as a
moral example.
A) But in my judgment Scripture often intends its characters to be
exemplary, as in Heb. 11.
3
B) We must, of course, remember that every biblical character save Jesus
is fallible, not exemplary in every respect.
ii. You should never try to “apply” a biblical text to ethical issues, but should
let the Holy Spirit do that in the hearts of your hearers.
A) But Scripture’s purpose is application, John 20:31, 2 Tim. 3:16-17.
B) All biblical writers and preachers seek to apply biblical teaching to the
lives of their hearers. How can we exclude this emphasis?
C) All preaching and teaching necessarily is application, whether it be
relatively theoretical or relatively practical. Its purpose is to answer
human questions, to meet human need.
D) The goal of the preacher should be the goal of the Holy Spirit. Divine
sovereignty and human responsibility work together.
iii. You should always make soteriology and eschatology the primary themes
of your teaching, whatever the text.
A) In my judgment, this approach leads to many arbitrary, even bizarre
interpretations of Bible texts.
B) Preachers who follow this method also tend to miss many other themes
of Scripture, particularly the ethical ones.
6. Value: Quality of worth or merit
a. There are many kinds of value: economic, aesthetic, etc., of which ethical value
is one.
b. Thus ethics is often regarded as a subdivision of value-theory.
7. Virtue
a. Worth, value, ground of praise for someone or something.
b. Non-moral virtues: efficiency, skill, talent, etc.
c. Moral virtue: morally good character.
d. “Virtue ethics:” focusing on the virtues, rather than norms or consequences.
8. Good: General adjective of commendation
a. Non-moral uses — to refer to non-moral values or virtues
i. “Teleological goodness”: good for something; e.g., “good hammer”.
ii. Skillful, e.g., “good plumber”
a) Although occasionally such an expression will carry a moral nuance, it
is usually assumed that one can be a good plumber, teacher,
businessman, etc., without being morally good.)
b) Of course, moral issues affect skills. A plumber who gets drunk on the
job will not be a good plumber even in the non-moral sense.
iii. It is important to recognize analogies between moral and non-moral
goodness
a) In both cases, God determines the grounds of commendation and the
means of achieving it.
b) Both kinds of goodness are teleological in a broad sense: even moral
goodness is “good for” the kingdom of God.
4
c) Both kinds of goodness involve capacities or skills.
d) Even non-moral values and virtues should be used to the glory of God.
So ethical and non-ethical goodnesses interact in important ways.
b. Moral goodness: A human act, attitude or person receiving God’s blessing.
9. Right
a. Often roughly synonymous with “good”: a “right” act is a “good” act.
b. Tends to be more legally colored than “good”: “righteousness” and “justice”
are close synonyms.
c. “Right” tends to be used mostly of actions, “good” of persons or attitudes.
d. Some philosophers make arbitrary distinctions between these terms for their
own purposes.
10. Ought: Verb of obligation. Indicates an action mandated by an ethical norm.
11. Obligation, Duty: Something we ought to do.
a. Prima facie duties: falling under a general norm that has some exceptions.
(“Thou shalt not kill” allows for killing in just war and proper capital
punishment.”).
b. Actual: Our actual obligation, taking all exceptions into account.
c. Present: duties we must perform at this moment.
d. Eventual: duties that can be postponed, but are nevertheless mandatory.
12. Justice
a. Moral rightness.
b. Fairness, equality.
i. Conservatism: equality of opportunity.
ii. Liberalism: equality of condition.
13. Ethical Justification: reasoning attempting to show the rightness of an action.
a. Subjective: the reason we believe our action is justified.
b. Objective: the reason why it is actually justified (in the sight of God).
i. Prima facie
ii. Actual
14. Levels of Ethical Justification
a. Obligation, duty, obedience to command (must, ought, should).
i. Corporate
ii. Individual
b. Prohibition: a negative obligation.
c. Permission
i. By approved biblical example.
ii. By express permission (eating meat).
iii. By biblical silence (when the act is not in a category that Scripture declares
to be sinful).
d. Commendation, praise
i. As David’s mighty men, the widow’s mite, the sharing of Acts 4.
5
ii. Are such acts obligatory?
A. Scripture does not seem to command them for every person. Nobody
should be charged with sin for failure to perform acts of moral heroism.
B. Yet the ultimate standard of obligation is the self-giving love of Christ
(John 13:34-35).
C. Do you doubt that David’s mighty men felt an obligation?
D. We should be thankful that we are saved by grace, rather than by
carrying out God’s ethical standards!
C. The Triangle (Structure of Part One of the course)
1. The “Lordship Attributes”: Characteristics of God that define His covenant
relationship to us. (Note “Yahweh” treaty pattern).
a. Control: Works all things according to the counsel of His will.
b. Authority: His word is unconditionally binding.
c. Covenant solidarity or presence: “I will be with you;” “I will be your God and
you shall be My people.” God commits Himself to us so that we live in His
presence. Results in blessing or judgment.
2. Lordship and Ethics: How does God govern our ethical life?
a. Control: He plans history so as to determine what means are conducive to His
ultimate purposes, our ultimate blessing.
b. Authority: He speaks to give us the norms for behavior.
c. Presence:
i. He, Himself, is our example of righteousness.
ii. It is His presence by which we gain the power to become righteous.
3. Necessary and Sufficient Criteria of Good Works
“Problem of the virtuous pagan”: Non-Christians do conform to the law externally
at times. Why does Scripture declare them to be depraved? Because they
altogether lack the following (WCF 16.7):
a. Right Goal: The glory of God (I Corinthians 10:31; Colossians 3:23; Matthew
6:33).
b. Right Standard: Sin is lawlessness, and obedience is the criterion of
discipleship. John 14:21, 1 John 3:4, etc.
c. Right Motive: I Corinthians 13; Romans 14:23 [faith / love], by grace, by
God’s Spirit.
4. Factors in Ethical Judgment: World, Law, Self [Consider yourself in a counseling
session]
a. What is the situation, the problem?
b. What does God’s Word say?
c. What is my attitude? Do I have the maturity to make the right decision, the
spiritual capacity to apply God’s Word to the situation?
5. Ethical teaching of Scripture itself
a. Appeal to the events of redemption, imitation of God, Jesus, and others: John
13:34-35, Rom. 6:1-23, 13:11-12, 1 Cor. 6:20, 10:11, 15:58, Eph. 4:1-5, 25,
6
32, 5:25-33, Phil. 2:1-11, Col. 3:1-4 (and judgment, 2 Cor. 5:10), Heb. 12:1-
28, 1 Pet. 2:1-3, 4:1-6
b. Appeal to commandments (of the OT law, Jesus, and Paul): Matt. 19:18-19,
Luke 10:26f, John 14:15, 21, Rom. 12:19, 13:8ff, 1 Cor. 5:13, 14:34, 2 Cor.
8:15, 9:9, Eph. 4:20-24, 6:1-3, 1 Thess. 4:1, 2 Tim. 3:16-17, Tit. 2:1, James
1:22-25, 2:8-13, 1 Pet. 1:16, 1 John 2:3-5, 3:24, 5:2
c. Appeal to the Spirit, who gives new life within: Rom. 8:1-17, Gal. 5:16-18, 22-
26, Eph. 5:8-21.
6. Perspectives on the Discipline of Ethics: In general, ethical judgment always
involves the application of a norm to a situation by a person. [May be useful to
structure your paper like this]. One can look at the discipline from any of these
three vantage points.
a. The Situational Perspective (teleological)
i. Focuses on nature and history as under God’s control.
ii. Notes relations of means to ends in God’s economy.
iii. Asks “What are the best means of achieving God’s purposes?”
b. The Normative Perspective (deontological)
i. Focuses on Scripture as the source of ethical norms.
ii. Asks “What does Scripture teach about this question?”
c. The Existential Perspective (existential)
i. Focuses on the self in confrontation with God.
ii. Asks “How must I change if I am to be holy?”
7. Interdependence of the Perspectives
a. The “situation” includes Scripture and the self. You don’t truly understand the
situation until you see it in the light of Scripture and until you see its bearing
upon yourself.
b. The “norm” must be applied to the situation and to the self, or else it is not
adequately understood. (No difference between “understanding” and
“application”.) Scripture is rightly seen only when it is properly related to the
world and to the self.
i. Does someone understand the meaning of the eighth commandment if he
does not know how the commandment applies to embezzling or tax
evasion? Not adequately, at any rate.
ii. Every attempt to “understand” or to “find meaning” is an attempt to
answer some question or meet some need.
c. The “self” cannot be rightly understood until seen in the context of its situation
and rightly interpreted by the Word of God.
d. Each perspective, then, necessitates consideration of the others. None of the
perspectives can be treated adequately unless the others also are considered.
Thus, each “includes” both of the others.
e. Each perspective, then, is a way of viewing the whole of ethics.
7
f. The faithfulness and sovereignty of God insure that the three foci will be
consistent with one another. A right interpretation of the situation will be
consistent with a right interpretation of the law and of the self, etc.
g. Though the perspectives are ultimately identical, they do view the whole from
genuinely different angles. Thus they provide us with checks and balances.
i. Wrong interpretations of the situation can be corrected by right
interpretations of the law.
ii. But the opposite is also true. Wrong interpretations-applications of the law
can be corrected by right interpretations of the situation.
iii. This is not relativism, but only a reminder about the importance of right
interpretation. The law of God is our absolute norm, but it must be rightly
understood. We are not responsible to do what we falsely imagine
Scripture to teach.
8. Apologetic Use of the Perspectives
a. Non-Christian ethical systems tend to lose the balance of the three
perspectives. Only Christian ethics brings these together in a mutually enriching
manner.
i. Teleological ethics: (utilitarianism) absolutizes a wrongly conceived
situational perspective.
A) Tries to derive norms from empirical study of the situation.
B) But Hume’s question is important: how do you get from “is” to
“ought?” The naturalistic fallacy (Moore).
ii. Deontological ethics: (e.g., Kant) denies the situational perspective in the
interest of a wrongly conceived normative perspective (and existential).
iii. Existentialist ethics: Absolutizes a misconceived existential perspective and
virtually denies the other two.
b. Contrary to some critics, Reformed ethics need not be a mere “ethics of law.”
The genius of the Reformed faith is its view of the comprehensiveness of
God’s covenant lordship. This view implies a broad vision of the many
elements of the ethical situation, of the many factors influencing ethical
judgment and action.
i. A strong view of biblical authority, clarity, and sufficiency (normative).
ii. A strong view of general revalation (situational).
iii. A strong view of the importance of self-knowledge (existential). Calvin’s
Institutes, 1.1.1
c. Reformed ethics can account for all the nuances, the subtleties involved in
ethical decision-making, without compromising the straightforward, simple
unity of our obligation, namely obedience to God as He has revealed His will in
Scripture. Unity and diversity.
D. The Square
1. Purpose
8
a. Pedagogical device to explain and illustrate Van Til’s teaching concerning the
dialectical structure of non-Christian thought: one / many; rationalist /
irrationalist; determinism / autonomy, etc.
b. Another way to summarize the basic character of Christian ethics in contrast
with non-Christian systems.
c.
AC
BD
2. Basic Structure
a. Left side (A, B) represents Christian views.
b. Right side (C, D) represents non-Christian views.
c. Upper corners (A, C) represent views of transcendence—i.e., recognition that
the source of moral obligation is in some sense “beyond” man.
d. Lower corners (B, D) represent views of immanence—i.e., recognition that
moral norms are in some sense relevant to, involved with human life.
e. Diagonal line AD represents direct contradiction between the Christian view of
transcendence and the non-Christian view of immanence. Similarly BC, mutatis
mutandis.
f. Line AC represents formal similarity between the two views of transcendence:
they can be expressed in similar language, even fortified with the same
Scripture texts. Same for line BD in respect to immanence.
g. Line AB concerns the relation of assertions within the Christian system, and
CD same for the non-Christian assertions. The latter are mutually
contradictory, while the former are not, mysterious as their relationships may
be.
3. Interpretation
a. Transcendence and Immanence
i. Christian transcendence: The God of Scripture is Lord over all factors in
the moral situation. He is the controller of situations, the supreme moral
authority, the ultimate cause of all human righteousness.
ii. Christian immanence: This Lord is covenantally with us. Thus he is deeply
involved in all created events, he reveals his law clearly, he works in us and
among us to perfect holiness in his people.
iii. Non-Christian transcendence: The non-Christian either denies that there is
any God or else deifies something created. The former alternative can be
9
stated as a sort of belief in transcendence: no final answers in morality are
available to man; they are entirely beyond us.
iv. Non-Christian immanence: The latter of the alternatives noted under iii. can
be stated as a belief in immanence: the truth is available to us, because we
ourselves (or something in creation) are the final authority, the final
controllers of moral situations, etc.
v. Compare 3a with 2 to see how the various statements are related.
a) AD contradictory: God is Lord / something created is Lord.
b) BC contradictory: God reveals his will clearly / he does not.
c) AC formal similarity: both speak of ethics as sublime, beyond human
devising, frustrating all human attempts at manipulating, modifying,
using to selfish advantage.
d) BD formal similarity: both speak of ethics as relevant, practical, as
engaging human responsibility.
e) Note inconsistency of CD, harmony of AB.
b. Irrationalism and Rationalism: The square may also be interpreted from a more
epistemological point of view. Epistemology is also an important area for
ethical discussion. Epistemology may be regarded as an aspect of ethics (a
study of what we ought to believe, granted certain data—cf., “Doctrine of the
Knowledge of God”), or vice versa (ethics in that case being one particular
area of knowledge).
i. Christian irrationalism (A on diagram): God, not man, determines truth and
falsehood. Thus our knowledge is always subordinate to his authority.
Thus man’s reason is limited in what it can achieve; it can never be the
ultimate source of truth.
ii. Christian rationalism (B): But God has spoken to us and given us a sure
and certain knowledge upon which we may and must base all the decisions
of our lives.
iii. Non-Christian irrationalism (C): There is no sure and certain knowledge;
no final truth.
iv. Non-Christian rationalism (D): There is a sure and certain knowledge,
because we (or something else in creation) are the ultimate judge of truth.
c. Absoluteness and Relevance of the Moral Law:
i. Christian absoluteness (A): The moral law is absolutely binding because
God is its author.
ii. Christian relevance (B): The law is relevant to human life because God, the
author of both, has fitted human life to suit his standards, has revealed
those standards clearly, and has given us the ability to apply them.
iii. Non-Christian absoluteness (C): The law is binding insofar as it is
unknowable, transcendent. (Note later examples in Plato, Kant.)
iv. Non-Christian relevance (D): The law is relevant insofar as it is derived
from creation and therefore non-absolute.
d. Sovereignty and Responsibility:
10
i. Christian sovereignty (A): God is sovereign as creator and controller of all
aspects of moral life.
ii. Christian responsibility (B): Because God is sovereign, he rightly imposes
upon us the responsibility to obey, and he sovereignly uses our choices as
significant, meaningful historical forces.
iii. Non-Christian sovereignty (C): Ultimately the world is governed by fate or
chance, and so human choices don’t make any difference.
iv. Non-Christian responsibility (D): We are responsible because we are the
creators of morality. We create our own moral meaning. There is no
sovereignty over us.
e. Objectivity and Inwardness:
i. Christian objectivity (A): The meaning of the moral law does not depend
on my response to it, but wholly upon God’s word.
ii. Christian inwardness (B): The law is revealed in my inmost being and
demands obedience at the most profound level—obedience from the heart.
iii. Non-Christian objectivity (C): The good is so far beyond us that it can
never be known, described or attained.
iv. Non-Christian inwardness (D): Since we are the ultimate judges of moral
good, there can be no standard external to ourselves.
f. Humility and Hope:
i. Christian humility (A): We have no claim on God in ourselves. As creatures
and sinners we do not deserve blessing.
ii. Christian hope (B): But God has redeemed us by his sovereign grace.
Blessing is assured in Christ.
iii. Non-Christian humility (C) [despair]: There is no redemption, no hope of
ever achieving blessing.
iv. Non-Christian hope (D) [pride]: We can save ourselves through our own
efforts.
g. Freedom and authority in society:
i. Christian freedom (A): Since God is the only ultimate ruler, all human
authority is limited. The sovereignty of God thus guarantees human
freedom.
ii. Christian authority (B): Yet God has clearly revealed that kings, fathers,
ministers, etc. have genuine, though limited, authority in their respective
spheres.
iii. Non-Christian freedom (C): Since there is no final truth, I owe allegiance
to no one (anarchy).
iv. Non-Christian authority (D): Since we are the creators of moral obligation,
we may demand absolute allegiance from others in all spheres of life
(totalitarianism).
11
II. Survey of Non-Christian Ethical Systems
A. More Explicitly Religious
All non-Christian systems, even the purportedly secular ones, are religious in the sense of
being governed by “basic commitment”. Some, however, are more explicitly religious
than others, employing alleged revelations, liturgical rites, etc. These we consider here.
Three themes appear particularly prominent:
1. Ethics Based on Impersonal Cosmic Law [Ancient Egyptian maat, Babylonian me,
Greek moira or ate (fate), Confucian tien (heaven)].
a. The law is beyond gods and men. Both gods and men must look beyond
themselves to ascertain the content of the law. In this sense, the law is
transcendent and objective (cf. above).
b. In Confucian and some expressions of Greek religion, the law is powerful in its
own right, working vengeance against those who defy it. In Egypt, Babylon,
and some other Greek sources, there is more emphasis upon enforcement of
the law by gods and human rulers.
c. In the latter two, and to some extent in the others, there is a tendency toward
hierarchicalism—a chain of authorities from the law to the gods through
various human authorities. The Egyptian Pharaoh is the link between heaven
and earth, the absolute arbiter of right and wrong.
d. In general, the ethical precepts of these systems remind one of the Scriptural
precepts; this is to be expected on the basis of Romans 1 and 2. However,
“fate” is often something less than a distinctively moral force, and in some
systems (Egypt, animism), the cosmic forces can be manipulated by men
(magic) for their own selfish purposes. Relation between the moral law and
these non-moral forces is unclear.
e. How do we get to know the law? Through human experts (the Pharaoh, above,
c; the Confucian scholar). How do they know it? By observing its workings in
human experience. In this sense the law is more immanent than transcendent.
Formulation of it boils down to man’s analysis of his own experience.
f. Critique:
i. Autonomous analysis of experience will not yield precepts which are
universal and necessary (i.e., ethically obligatory). Cf. above material on
rationalism.
ii. Even if the universe is programmed to reward certain actions and punish
others, why does this fact impose any obligation upon the individual? Why
would it not be virtuous to struggle (even if vainly) against this impersonal
tyranny?
iii. These systems tend toward authoritarianism because they have lost the
balance between one and many found in Scripture.
iv. Summary: Not clear how this scheme furnishes an ethical norm, or how we
can know it. The knowledge offered by human expertise provides only a
relative norm, or one arbitrarily said to be absolute.
2. Ethics as a Quest for the Transethical
12
a. This emphasis is particularly characteristic of Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism
and ancient Gnosticism. Hinduism and Taoism also have strong elements of the
first emphasis (Hindu, karma, caste, the Taoist way of nature) as do most all
religions in their less sophisticated forms.
b. This sort of thought is essentially monistic. i.e., it holds that ultimate reality is
one, not many.
c. The pluralities of our experience, the distinctions (including the distinction
between good and evil) are ultimately illusory. On this principle, all elements of
ethics in its normal sense are eliminated:
i. Normative perspective: the distinction between good and evil is ultimately
illusory. Reality is beyond good and evil, transethical.
ii. Situational perspective: the world as experienced by the senses does not
exist. History is an illusion. One seeks detachment from things, not a Godglorifying
use of them.
iii. Existential perspective: the self also is illusion, and other selves are illusory
as well. Thus the concepts of personal and social ethics are ultimately
meaningless.
d. Ethics enters as part of man’s quest for union with the One. Right living is part
of the discipline by which one escapes the continuous cycle of rebirth and
achieves Nirvana, that union with the ultimate which is also characterized as
annihilation.
i. Often this principle puts ethics on a thoroughly egoistic basis, though in
some cases (e.g. Mahayana Buddhism) there are elements of altruism (the
Buddha, about to achieve Nirvana, returns to the world to help others). It
is not, however, clear in these systems why one ought to be altruistic.
ii. Though ethics plays an important role in these systems, it is ultimately
negotiable. Our goal is to reach a state of mind in which ethical distinctions
no longer have meaning.
e. Ethical standards on these views:
i. To a great extent [as was the case with #1] the concrete norms resemble
the laws of Scripture.
ii. The overall goal, however, in these religions, is detachment—from things,
the world, other people. This theme contrasts sharply with the biblical
teaching that love is the central commandment.
iii. The stress on detachment plus the exaltation of nature to the status of
ultimate ethical authority (particularly in Taoism and Hinduism) often leads
to a passive acceptance of natural and social evil.
iv. The vagueness of detachment as an overriding ethical norm is illustrated by
the differences among Gnostics, who also held to a monistic worldview.
A) Some were ascetics (wishing to get free of the body and its wants),
B) Others libertines (feeling that what happens to the body is of little
importance).
13
v. The sense of “oneness with nature” found in these religions has been
praised by contemporary ecologists. However, the laissez-faire attitude
toward nature is as dangerous as the grasping, exploitative attitude
common in the West. India’s problems with disease, starvation,
overpopulation are compounded by the attitudes of Hinduism toward
cattle, insects, etc.
f. Summary
i. Monism leads to an empty absolute—an ultimate reality with no rational or
ethical character.
ii. Ethics is subordinate to metaphysics. Man’s quest for metaphysical union
with the One takes precedence over all ethical considerations. Salvation is
metaphysical transcendence, not redemption from sin.
iii. As such, there is no basis for ethical action or ground for ethical hope.
3. Ethics as Law Without Gospel
a. All religions except Christianity are religions of works-righteousness, religions
in which one seeks to gain stature through his good works. Even religions that
resemble Christianity greatly in their view of God and Scripture (unlike those
above) may be faulted in this area.
b. Under this category we include non-Messianic Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism,
many cults, as well as the religions noted above.
c. The principle of works righteousness feeds man’s pride on the one hand and
his despair on the other. One either deceives himself into believing that he is
keeping the commandments perfectly, or (with clearer self-understanding) he
loses hope of ever meeting God’s standard.
d. Having said all this, it must be recognized that Judaism, Islam and similar
religions do often derive their ethics from (alleged) word-revelation of a
personal God. In these and other ways they are influenced by Scripture.
i. However, denial of the Gospel of Christ drives a wide chasm between these
and Christianity.
ii. The consequences of Unitarianism must also be noted:
a) The elimination of distinctions in God leads to a god without moral
character (liberal Judaism and Christianity) in many cases.
b) The governance of God over the world is fatalistic, more mechanical
than personal, in Islam. There is a tendency there to make God an
abstract principle as in Eastern religions. Fatalism is devastating to
moral responsibility.
c) Note also the tendency toward statism in Islam due to the primacy of
the one over the many (Rushdoony, The One and the Many).
B. Less Explicitly Religious (“secular” ethics)
1. Major Tendencies
Ethical systems (Christian and non-Christian both) attempt to do justice to various
concerns of which the following are prominent. Generally a thinker will try to
incorporate more than one of them into his system. Although these matters are of
14
concern both to Christians and non-Christians, both being in contact with God’s
law, the non-Christian systems are inevitably unsuccessful in implementing these
concerns without distortion and conflict.
a. Deontological (focusing on the normative perspective)
i. The ethical norm must be transcendent, sublime
a) It must be beyond ourselves, not a mere expression of our self-interest.
It must be capable of motivating self-sacrifice—the opposite of selfish
concern.
b) It must not be derivable from mere sense-experience. Sense-experience
can tell us facts, but from those facts alone no obligation may be
derived. (The claim that facts imply obligation is sometimes called the
“naturalistic fallacy”.) The basis of duty must come from somewhere
“beyond”.
ii. The ethical norm must be authoritative, must bind us, must impose duty
upon us. We must have no right to disobey. There is no excuse for
disobedience. Else there is no ethical norm, properly speaking.
iii. The ethical norm must be universally binding. A principle that binds me
must be binding also on anyone else in the same situation. If it is wrong for
me to rob a bank, it must be wrong for you also. Ethics is no respecter of
persons. Obligation does not change when the only variable factor is the
person involved.
iv. Summary: Ethics is something God-like. It comes from above, calls us all
to account.
b. Teleological (focusing on the situational perspective)
i. Immanence: Ethical obligation is part of ordinary life, not something
spooky, or something that appears only in crisis situations. We make moral
decisions every day, moment by moment.
ii. Practicality: The content of the ethical norm is clear, definable.
iii. Doing good brings happiness. It is in our best interest, at least in the long
run. The moral life is the good life.
iv. One may even answer moral questions by determining the consequences of
an action—the happiness produced, etc. Happiness is the end; the moral
task is to determine and accomplish the means to that end (teleology).
v. Specificity: The moral law applies to each specific case and takes the
distinctive nature of each case into account.
vi. Righteousness is never merely internal. It gets involved in the world as
much as it is able, adapting means to ends (the tree and its fruits).
vii. Righteousness is part of the causal order of nature (cf. iv.). Moral
goodness is not an arbitrary decision arising in the soul by chance, but is a
response to situations as reasons. The best people are consistently,
predictably good.
c. Personalist (or “existential,” focusing on the existential perspective)
i. Immanence: Ethics is something profoundly inward, a matter of the heart.
15
a) True righteousness is never hypocritical—never merely pretending to
do the right.
b) To do what appears right with a grudging, hating inner motive is
always wrong.
c) Thus it is wrong to judge people merely on the basis of external
conduct.
d) The ethical norm must be affirmed from within, or it does not produce
goodness. The moral law must not be merely external; it must become
my law, my standard.
ii. Ethical behavior is self-realization. It expresses what I am.
a) An expression of human nature (Aquinas, etc.).
b) An expression of human freedom (Sartre, others who deny that man
has any nature).
iii. Responsibility implies freedom. My ethical choices are not simply
determined by my heredity or environment or by my past choices.
iv. Persons are ends in themselves—not to be sacrificed for principles or
things.
d. Problems
i. Though some of the above formulations may generate some controversy, I
believe that most everyone will see some truth in all of them.
ii. Non-Christian thought, however is unable to integrate these concerns
without conflict. Conflicts lead to redefining or denying one or more of
these propositions.
a) How can the law be beyond us [a.i.a); a..iv.] and also in our midst [b.i.]
or even within us [c.i.]?
b) How can obedience be unselfish [a.i.a)] and also in our best interest
[b.iii.] and self-expressive [c.i.d); c.ii.]?
c) How may we determine ethical obligation from circumstances [b.iv.]
when it is neither derivable from sense-experience [a.i.b)] nor external
to ourselves [c.i.]?
d) How can the norm be authoritative [a.ii.] over me if its taking effect
presupposes inward acceptance [c.i.d)]?
e) How can the norm be universally binding [a.iii.] if it must take account
of the distinctive nature of each particular case [b.v.]?
f) How can its content be clear and definable [b.ii.] if it comes form
beyond our experience [a.i.]?
g) How can righteousness be both profoundly external [b.vi.] and
profoundly internal [c.i.]?
h) How can moral conduct be both free [c.ii.b); c.iii.] and also rationally
and causally motivated [b.ii.]?
i) If the moral law is God-like [a.iv.], why should persons not be
sacrificed to it [c.iv.]?
16
e. Christian Response
i. Cf. “the square”. Problems are generated because of false concepts of
transcendence and immanence.
ii. Specific replies to problems under d.ii.:
a) The law is beyond us because God is beyond us as Lord; it is near
because God is near and his law is near (Deuteronomy 30)
b) Obedience is in our best interest because God has created and directed
history to make it so. When we give up our own schemes to serve him,
we gain happiness and fulfillment, and vice-versa (Matthew 10:39;
16:25, parallels).
c) We may derive ethical obligation from circumstances because we
presuppose the normative interpretation of those circumstances given in
God’s Word.
d) The norm is binding whether or not I accept it; but unless I affirm the
law from the heart, nothing else I do will be truly obedient.
e) Scripture presents God’s will in such detail that its teaching is
applicable to all situations.
f) The law comes from God who speaks it clearly in human experience.
g) God has created men in an organic relationship with the world and
other men. Individual purity of heart coincides with outgoing love for
others in the world.
h) God has organized the moral order so that acts are motivated, but so
that man’s environment and past choices never constitute excuses for
sin.
i) The moral law is itself personal—the word of the living God. Our
attitude toward it is our attitude toward him. The law, further, never
requires, ultimately, a sacrifice of person to principle. Obedience is
happiness and fulfillment [e.ii.b)] (cf. Mark 2:27).
2. The Milesians: Thales: “All is water.” Anaximander: “All is indefinite.”
Anaximenes: “All is air.” (6th century BC)
a. Denies creator / creature distinction.
b. Rationalism (man determines ultimate nature of everything); irrationalism
(mind reduced to water, air, indefinite).
c. Thus moral distinctions also reduce to the chance developments of physical
reality. Moral standards are mere movements of water, etc., which cannot
obligate.
3. The Eleatics: Xenophanes, Parmenides, Zeno (6th and 5th centuries)
All reality is static, undifferentiated being.
a. Attempts to be purely rationalistic, but must invoke irrationalism to account for
the appearance, or illusion of change.
b. On this view, too, moral distinctions disappear. The moral quest, the need for
moral decision, is ultimately illusory. Cf. Eastern religions, [II.A.2.].
4. Heraclitus (535-475)
17
a. Irrationalism: “Everything changes.” “You cannot step in the same river
twice.”
b. Rationalism: The logos governs all by a constant, rational pattern. (Is this the
one thing that does not change?)
c. Heraclitus is the first philosopher to have addressed moral issues specifically.
Ethics, to him, is living rationally, according to the logos. Self-discipline and
constancy of character are his chief principles.
d. But how can this be done if “everything changes”? And how can we make any
contact with the logos if everything changes?
e. In all of the Greek systems, ethics boils down to “living rationally.” But there is
no adequate recognition of the problematic nature of reason itself, nor
reflection on the presuppositions on which reason must function.
f. On many ethical questions, there is no obvious, generally accepted rational
answer.
5. The Atomists: Leucippus; Democritus (460-370); Epicurus (341-270); Lucretius
(94-54)
a. Reality is reducible to tiny pieces of matter (atoms) in motion.
b. Knowledge begins in sense-perception, but must be refined by reason.
c. For Democritus (cf. later on Epicurus), ethics is living rationally, in search of
the truest and highest pleasure (hedonism: pleasure as the supreme goal). An
early form of teleological ethics.
d. The highest pleasures result from the moderating of desire.
e. Critique: cf. Heraclitus
i. What moral obligation is possible if all reality reduces to matter and
motion?
ii. On what basis do we declare what is or is not rational?
6. The Sophists: Protagoras (490-???); Gorgias; Thrasymachus; others: the birth of
existential ethics.
a. No objective standards of truth and falsity or right or wrong. There is no
“objective truth,” only “truth for me.”
b. Thrasymachus: “Justice is the interest of the stronger.” Moral norms are
devised by various people in society to gain power for themselves.
c. Thus there are no moral constraints; “Man is the measure of all things.”
d. The above represents irrationalism. Yet sophism is also rationalistic in that it
claims critical discernment, claims to teach people how to be successful.
e. Thus sophism, like the other systems, denies all moral distinctions while
claiming to maintain them in some form. The result is no moral guidance
whatever.
f. All of these systems, however, rightly demand a basis for ethics, rather than
blind adherence to tradition.
7. Plato (427-347): mostly deontological, though with some existential elements.
Rejects teleology in ethics.
18
a. Vs. Sophists: There is objective truth. Our knowledge is based upon our prebirth
experience of the world of Forms, which is eternal and unchanging.
b. “Good” is the highest of the Forms. All reality partakes of goodness to some
extent. Evil results from non-being. (Plato’s argument for the primacy of good
over evil is not convincing.)
c. “Good,” therefore, is higher than any god. In Euthyphro, he seeks to discover
what piety (and, by extension the Good) is in itself, apart from anything gods
or men may say. Good is an abstract principle [cf. Ancient Religions, II.A.1.].
d. Only “the good” is truly good.
i. Lesser “goods” can be bad—some situations—pleasure, peace, boldness,
etc.
ii. Apparent “evils” can sometimes be good—war, pain, sorrow, fear.
iii. So none of these fully capture the meaning of goodness as such. Only
knowledge does this—for it is never wrong to act knowledgeably.
e. For man, virtue is knowledge and vice-versa (cf. earlier philosophers). No one
ever does wrong knowingly. Again, here he engages in dubious argumentation.
f. Reason, therefore, must govern all other “parts” of the soul.
g. Pleasure is not an end in itself, but it does motivate us to live according to
reason (consistent?).
h. Politics: As reason must rule the individual, so the most rational men
(philosophers) ought to govern the state (Republic).
i. People are divided into different categories (cf. Hindu caste system) and
educated for the work of their class.
ii. For upper castes, communism, community of wives and children.
iii. Less totalitarianism in Laws.
i. Comments:
i. In seeking an objectively authoritative norm, Plato made it independent of
gods and men, but he thereby also made it abstract, devoid of specific
content.
ii. If all reality is good, how is good distinguished from evil?
iii. If the moral norm is the most abstract of principles, then its authority is
proportional to its irrelevance. No specific norm is truly authoritative.
iv. Having made goodness an abstract principle, he was unable to show why
we ought to emulate it.
v. Why, then, ought we to follow reason? And what does reason tell us to do?
vi. Note the connection between rationalism and political totalitarianism: If
reason is to rule, and reason is defined by man, man must rule and rule with
ultimate authority. The greater emphasis on freedom in the Laws
corresponds with concessions to irrationalism.
8. Aristotle (384-322): For a non-Christian, Aristotle presents the best balance
between deontological, teleological, and existential approaches.
19
a. For Aristotle, the Forms are not found in some other world. They are found in
this world, in things: The form of treeness is in every tree, etc.
b. Except for the divine Prime Mover, the forms always exist in things together
with matter.
c. Aristotle, thus, “demythologizes” Plato—brings him down to earth. Similarly in
ethics, Aristotle is less interested than Plato in the sublimity, the transcendence
of the moral law, more interested in its immanence, its relevance. He is more
“teleological” and “existential” while Plato is more “deontological,” though
neither is a pure example of either tendency.
d. The highest good for any being is the realization, actualization of its particular
nature (existential). Man’s highest good, therefore, is the life of reason.
e. Complete, habitual exercise of man’s rational nature constitutes “happiness”
(eudaimonia). Happiness is not pleasure, though pleasure accompanies it as a
secondary effect. Teleological.
f. The life of reason involves moderation in bodily appetites, ambitions, etc.
Often this involves choosing the “mean” between two extremes—courage as
the mean between cowardice and foolhardiness, etc.
g. This ethic is egoistic, in the sense that the highest goal is self-perfection,
selfrealization.
Realizing one’s true nobility, however, will sometimes involve selfsacrifice,
even giving one’s life for others.
h. The highest authority is the virtuous man—the rational man, to whom the
things which appear honorable are really honorable, etc.
i. vs. Socrates, Plato: For virtue, it does not suffice to know what is right; one
must also endeavor to do it. So laws, other inducements, are needed, as well as
education.
j. The state is more important than the individual as in general the whole is more
important than its parts. But the purpose of the state is to help individual
citizens to lead a happy life.
k. Prefers aristocracy to tyranny, democracy: it recognizes differences in
qualifications for citizenship, but rests on a broad base.
l. Comments:
i. As with Plato, goodness here is an abstract form, though found in things.
All specific moral norms are relative to it; it alone is absolute, universal,
necessary. Yet it has no specific content. Or rather, once one spells out its
content, he is left with a relative norm.
ii. On what basis do we assume that our supreme good is to be governed by
reason?
iii. If happiness is the end which we naturally pursue (as an acorn naturally
becomes a tree because of its innate form), why must we be exhorted to
seek it?
iv. Granted that it is our natural end, why ought we to pursue it? (“Naturalistic
fallacy” argument)
20
v. How are specific norms to be deduced from the concept of happiness? The
relation of these is unclear in Aristotle. One ought to exercise moderation if
one wishes to live a certain kind of life. But why ought one to make that
choice? If one chooses otherwise, then other courses of action are more
rational. Aristotle fails to recognize the presuppositions upon which his
notion of “rational” is based.
vi. There are some statist tendencies in Aristotle as in Plato, and for similar
reasons (cf. above, 8.j.). Though he balances carefully the concerns of the
state and the individual, the state in the end has the priority.
9. Early Teleological Theories
a. Cyrenaicism (Aristippus, b. 435BC): crude teleological ethics.
i. Highest good: greatest amount of pleasure and avoidance of pain.
ii. Best pleasures are the most intense; quantity, not quality, is the significant
variable.
iii. Hegesius the pessimist: For most people, there is more pain than pleasure.
The more we seek pleasure, the more we attain boredom and frustration.
Suicide is the most rational course.
b. Epicurus (341-270): more sophisticated teleological ethics.
i. General philosophy: atomism; [cf. 5. above]. Epicurus modifies the
traditional atomism by saying that atoms occasionally “swerve” from their
vertical path. This swerve explains the formation of objects and human free
will.
ii. All people by nature seek pleasure and avoid pain; therefore these are the
goals of life; these are what we ought to do.
iii. Unlike the Cyrenaics, Epicurus distinguishes among the qualities of
pleasure: We ought to endure short-range pains for long-range pleasures;
we should prefer mental to physical pleasures, etc.
iv. To make such judgments, we need to know the causes of things.
Philosophical contemplation, thus, is the highest pleasure (cf. Aristotle).
v. Society begins in a social contract—for mutual self-interest. There is no
absolute justice apart from such self-interest.
vi. Laws are good if they are useful, if they protect, bring pleasure, etc. [Cf.
sophists].
vii. One ought to avoid involvement in public affairs as much as possible.
c. Comments:
i. Same problems as in atomism, compounded by the notion of pure chance
(“the swerve”).
ii. Does everybody seek pleasure and avoid pain? What about self-sacrifice?
iii. Or do we simply define pleasure as “what anyone seeks”? Then we have a
meaningless norm, as abstract as Plato’s good.
iv. Granted that everyone does seek pleasure and avoid pain, why ought we?
(Question of the “naturalistic fallacy”).
21
v. Determining what to do in any situation seems hopelessly complex. There
are so many different kinds of pleasure and pain to be measured against one
another. Further, one cannot measure any of them until one knows their
effects indefinitely into the future. (What future pains and pleasures will
there be if I choose X?) The principle seems at first to be simple and
practical, but on reflection it appears otherwise.
vi. Note, then, the tension between the meaningless absolute [iii.] and the
hopelessly disjointed particulars [v.].
vii. Note also the lack of a revealed standard to set forth specifically and
authoritatively the whole duty of man.
viii. Social contract idea leads to a dialectic of anarchy and totalitarianism:
Absolute right of private self-interest on the one hand and collective selfinterest
on the other.
10. Early Deontological Theories
a. Cynicism (Antisthenes, d. 366BC)
i. Virtue is knowledge (Socrates), and is worthwhile for its own sake, apart
from any pleasure that may attend it. Doing good to achieve pleasure is
morally worthless.
ii. Man must, then, become independent of the desire for pleasure.
iii. The Cynics sought self-discipline, renunciation of possessions, even
rejection of civilization.
b. Stoicism (Zeno of Citium, 336-264)
i. Knowledge is based on sense-perception, conceptualized so as to reflect
the rational order of the world itself (logos).
ii. Form and matter, body and soul, are all material.
iii. God is the world-soul (pantheism).
iv. Determinism, fatalism, eternal recurrence. Freedom is rational selfdetermination
(vs. Epicureans).
v. Man’s goal: to act in harmony with the universal reason, to live according
to nature. Self-realization.
vi. Pleasure, health, life, etc. are good only as they contribute to virtuous
character. In themselves they are nothing.
vii. As there is one universal reason, there is one universal society of which all
are members. Its laws are objective, universally binding (vs. Epicureans).
viii. All are brothers; all have equal rights.
ix. We ought to sacrifice ourselves for the general welfare.
x. It is our duty to participate in public affairs to promote the general good
(vs. Epicureans).
c. Comments:
i. Why ought we to live according to reason? Pleasure has been rejected as a
motive. What other is there?
22
ii. Materialism, determinism, fatalism reduce ethics to physical, causal
process. Cf. Milesians, Atomists.
iii. What is the demand of reason? Any specific norm is relativized with
respect to the general demand of rationality. Thus it is impossible to say
specifically what reason requires.
iv. Problems of philosophical empiricism, materialism, rationalism, pantheism.
11. Neoplatonism (Plotinus, 204-269 AD)
a. God is “the One” — devoid of all plurality and diversity — from which all
reality emanates of necessity, like light from a lamp.
b. Man, therefore, is essentially divine. At one time he pointed toward God,
contemplating the eternal mind (nous) in mystical intuition. He fell by directing
his gaze toward the body.
c. Salvation comes through turning the mind away from sensuous life to thought,
and thence to God.
d. Three stages of self-redemption:
i. Purification: moderation of impulses to the point of complete freedom from
all sensual desire.
ii. Theoretical contemplation: Purification is only preparation for intuitive
contemplation of ideas.
iii. Ecstasy: Transcends even the most exalted thought. Here one loses oneself
entirely, becomes one with God.
e. Comments:
i. Philosophical monism and rationalism. In seeking exhaustive explanatory
principle. Plotinus finds a God who is “beyond” all. He must be beyond
everything in order to explain everything; but since he is beyond
everything, nothing can be said about him. Classic picture of non-Christian
transcendence.
ii. Non-Christian immanence: to the extent that anything is real, it is divine.
To the extent that anything is distinct from God, it is unreal.
iii. Cf., therefore, earlier critique of religious ethical systems which annihilate
ethical distinctions, persons, situations [(II.A.2.].
12. Transition to Modern Period
a. Since Medieval ethical philosophy is dominated by Christianity (with, to be
sure, considerable synthesis with non-Christian thought), we will discuss them
somewhat in connection with our exposition of biblical ethics.
b. The Renaissance marks a return to more unambiguous non-Christian patterns
of thought:
i. Recovery of and admiration for Greek and Roman thought, apart from
their use in the church’s ideology.
ii. The spirit of autonomy over against all revealed truth.
iii. Liberation, therefore, from the restraints of the “Medieval synthesis” by
which the relative rights of individuals, rulers, church, God had been
understood with relative clarity. Two directions:
23
a) Individualism: authority derived from the individual person (nominalism
- the many prior to the one).
b) Absolutism: the unlimited power and authority of the sovereign (from
realistic or nominalistic assumptions).
iv. Influence of modern science and mathematics:
a) Reduction of all to physical causation.
b) Power of reason (unaided) to understand all phenomena of interest to
science and philosophy.
13. Continental Rationalism (R. Descartes, 1596-1650; B. Spinoza, 1632-1677, G. W.
Leibniz, 1646-1716)
a. Descartes wrote little directly bearing on ethics. He did develop a theory of the
emotions in which the passions and their effects on the soul are described as
stemming from physical causation and mental states. The soul has an inner
satisfaction when it is virtuous, so that external influences have no troubling
influence [Cf. Stoics]. Descartes maintained free will.
b. Spinoza’s metaphysic culminates in ethics; the title of his major philosophical
work is Ethics.
i. The overall system: rationalist, determinist, pantheistic in a way (“God or
nature”), monistic.
ii. Ethics: egoism modified by rational judgment.
a) I have a right to do anything I have power to do.
b) But reason shows what is truly useful to me—rational contemplation,
universal accord among men, knowledge of God (“God or nature,” that
is).
c) Hence social contract, voluntary relinquishment of natural rights for the
sake of social existence.
c. Leibniz
i. General: the world consists of many indivisible, mind-like entities
(“monads”) which develop according to their own internal laws without
mutual influence (some inconsistency here).
ii. Organisms, as opposed to other bodies, are organized around a “queen
monad” or soul, with which they work in harmony.
iii. God is the supreme monad of the universe. His relation to the other
monads is somewhat unclear.
iv. This is the best of all possible worlds. The evils are necessary to maximize
the good. God could not have made a better world.
v. God and the other monads are bound by moral principles which are innate
to them. Reason enables us to become conscious of them and to follow
them, overcoming the corruption of evil appetites. “Intuititionism.”
vi. Each monad is autonomous, constrained by nothing outside itself (free
will); but it is fully determined by its own nature, which is programmed to
operate in “pre-established harmony” with other monads (determinism).
24
d. Summary: note rationalism, autonomy. Sin tends to be rationalized as mere
failure to understand, inner conflict between reason and appetite.
14. British Empiricism
a. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)
i. Some rationalistic tendencies often separate him from the later
“empiricists”. The label does not matter much.
ii. Knowledge begins in the senses, but seeks the causes of things, universal
and necessary properties.
iii. All can be explained as bodies undergoing various sorts of motion.
iv. Cf. Spinoza: We have the right to do anything that we are able to do.
v. Man by nature, thus, exists in a “state of war” with all others. In such a
state, “justice,” “law” have no meaning. But in that state, man cannot
preserve himself.
vi. Thus man relinquishes his natural right, agrees to claim only equal liberties
with others, for the sake of self-preservation.
vii. Once such a covenant is made, it must be enforced by threat of punishment;
else the state of war remains. Hence the commonwealth.
viii. Sovereignty, once conferred by majority agreement, is absolute, though the
right to self-preservation is inalienable.
ix. Moral philosophy discovers the laws of mankind’s self-preservation
(natural laws, divine laws).
x. Comments:
a) Note deviations from Scripture: man’s fallen state Hobbes calls natural,
man’s autonomous selfishness is called natural right, all obligations are
bestowed by autonomous man.
b) Note anarchy (the natural state, which is always the basic state) and
totalitarianism (the absolute sovereignty of the commonwealth).
b. John Locke, 1632-1704
i. Empiricism: the mind begins as a blank slate (tabula rasa), learns through
experience. All knowledge is merely probable (irrationalism), but the
principles of reason are more certain than any other alleged knowledge,
such as revelation (rationalism).
ii. No free will, but the person is free from external constraint.
iii. No innate moral truths (as in Leibniz, e.g.). Moral knowledge is inculcated
by parental and other teaching.
iv. This teaching, in turn, derives from the experience that virtuous conduct
brings pleasure and vicious conduct brings pain.
v. Divine law, civil law, and “law of opinion” (informal social sanctions)
enforce these rules with appropriate punishments.
vi. Man by nature can do as he sees fit, and is obligated not only to preserve
himself, but others also, insofar as his own preservation is not endangered.
25
In the state of nature, he may and ought to punish violations of this
principle by others.
vii. The state of nature, therefore, is not a state of war as in Hobbes. It can be
peaceful, kindly. But it lacks an established, known law and generally
acknowledged, impartial authority. Hence: the social contract.
viii. The power of society extends no farther than necessary for protection of
life, liberty, property, and no farther than is determined by the consent of
the governed.
ix. Thus absolute monarchy is wrong; and even the legislative system must be
kept from capricious and arbitrary power, though it is always superior to
the executive. And the people are superior to the legislature.
x. Comments:
a) Note autonomy of the people, ultimately of the individual. Revelation
plays a subsidiary role.
b) The derivation of rights and responsibilities on the basis of Locke’s
empiricism is dubious. “Naturalistic fallacy.”
c. Later Empiricists
i. George Berkeley (1685-1753) said little of note in the field of ethics.
ii. David Hume (1711-1776)
a) Developed empiricism to the point of skepticism on various matters. He
denies “necessary connection” between cause and effect, but remains a
determinist because of the “constant conjunction” observed between
causes and effects.
b) One major contribution to ethics is his argument on “ought” and “is,”
for which see G.E. Moore, below.
c) He was skeptical on the notion of a “social contract” as the basis of
government.
d) He bases all ethical judgments on feelings of approbation and
disapprobation. But this destroys normativity.
iii. See Mill below in the discussion of nineteenth century utilitarianism.
15. Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) “Romanticism”
a. Deistic religion, demonstrable by reason, but based on feeling—a matter of the
heart, not the head.
b. By nature, man is innocent and good (the “Noble Savage”). Ethics, like
religion, is essentially the outworking of the good will, the good feelings that
we have toward one another (existential perspective).
c. By nature, all are equal.
d. Evil comes through social institutions (such as property), corruption of our
natural feelings through civilization. (Note reversal of the evaluations of
Hobbes.)
e. Though we cannot eliminate social institutions, we ought to purify them by
cultivating natural feeling.
26
f. Civil states ought to be based on the will of all the people, not merely the
bourgeoisie, but also laborers and peasants.
g. Freedom lies in obedience to self-imposed law. We must learn to conform our
desires to the “general will” which alone is ultimately authoritative.
h. Comments:
i. Note extreme egalitarianism, coupled with totalitarian tendencies. Much of
this influences Marxism and other later thought.
ii. Note denial of the doctrine of the Fall, the autonomous authority of the
masses.
iii. Note attempt to do justice to the positive role of feeling. In some ways this
is good (cf. existential perspective); but an ethic based on autonomous
feeling alone loses normativity. Cf. above under Hume.
16. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
a. Recall phenomena / noumena distinction: the world of appearances
(exhaustively knowable) vs. the world as it really is (utterly unknowable).
b. Despite the skepticism implicit in the above distinction, Kant defends science
and mathematics by basing them in categories which the mind imposes upon its
experience. Similarly in ethics, Kant derives moral truth from the autonomous
moral self.
c. Kant is one of the purer examples of deontological ethics. There is also a large
element of “existential” ethics in Kant, due to the role played by the moral self.
At any rate, he has little sensitivity to the concerns raised by teleological ethics,
little appreciation for the situational perspective.
d. He argues that the only thing that is good unequivocally, i.e., good at all times
and places, is a good will.
e. A good will is a will which does its duty for duty’s sake—i.e., neither from
personal inclination nor for its own benefit (here Kant’s deontologism comes to
the fore.)
f. Duty always involves obedience to a categorical imperative.
i. The categorical imperative is distinguished from hypothetical (“if . . . then
. . . .”) imperatives, e.g., “If you want to build a cabinet, you must have
nails,” or even “If you want happiness, you must keep your promises.”
ii. If morality were derived from merely hypothetical imperatives, in Kant’s
view, it could not be absolutely and universally binding, for it would be
subject to conditions that might or might not exist.
iii. Therefore duty is not derivable from experience, any more than the basic
truths of mathematics and science are so derivable. Like them, the truths of
ethics are based on synthetic a priori judgments—judgments held prior to
experience.
g. An ethical principle is categorical if it is meaningful for someone to will its
universal application.
i. Example: you cannot will that everyone should make lying promises. If
everybody did, no one would believe anybody, and thus the whole concept
27
of a promise would become meaningless. To make a promise while
rendering meaningless the whole concept of promising is contradictory.
ii. Nor can you will universal cruelty, for this would involve willing cruel
treatment for yourself, desiring the undesirable, which is a contradiction.
iii. Summary: Act so that you can want everybody to follow the principle of
your action.
iv. Another Summary: Act so as to treat each rational creature as an end in
itself, not merely as a means. (It is contradictory to want this for yourself
while denying it to others.)
v. A Third Summary: Act so that your principles could be used to govern the
whole universe of rational persons.
h. Autonomy of ethics: In ethics, the self acts as an autonomous legislator [cf.
g.v.]. The moral law is essentially self-imposed.
i. Implications of ethics:
i. Since the ethical self is autonomous [h], and since obligation implies ability,
we may assume that the moral self is free. This fact cannot be proved, for
in our experience (phenomena) all events are caused. But the nature of
morality leads us to suppose that freedom exists in the real (noumenal)
world.
ii. God and immortality: Reason teaches that the good will deserves
happiness. Since virtue and happiness are not always linked in this life,
there must be a perfectly good, wise and powerful being who apportions
fitting rewards and punishments in a later life. A future life is also needed
so that the end of morality, the attainment of holiness, may be achieved.
God and immortality, like freedom, are not known to exist, only supposed.
j. Comments:
i. Note sharpness of difference with Christianity
a) Autonomy of the ethical self—both freedom from causation and
ultimate ethical authority.
b) God is not the ultimate authority of ethics, but the one who rewards
those who obey their own autonomous will.
c) We do not even know that God exists, and Kant’s system does not
require the existence of God.
d) Kant’s formulations and language suggest that the moral self ought to
act self-consciously as if he himself were God—”legislating” principles
not only for himself, but also for the whole universe of rational beings
(implying omniscience).
e) In Christian ethics, we are not called to do our duty merely for the sake
of duty. Self-interest, gratitude, love, etc., are also legitimate motives
for ethics.
ii. The problems of Kant’s overall dialectic (phenomena / noumena) invalidate
his ethics as well. If the noumenal world is wholly unknown, then it cannot
even be said to exist. If it does not exist, then it calls in question even our
28
knowledge of phenomena (what are the phenomena really like?). If it does
not exist, then there are no limits on reason at all, no means of restraining
speculation.
iii. At best, Kant provides a law without a gospel [cf. II.A.3)]—a norm
without power to make us obedient.
iv. Kant makes arbitrary assumptions all along the line without nearly enough
argument to sustain them:
a) that only actions are right which are done for duty’s sake,
b) that categorical duties can and must be derivable from the principle of
universality alone
c) that morally right acts are always acts which are derived from universal
principles, etc.
v. Unclarity of the categorical imperative.
a) In one sense, I can will, meaningfully, without contradiction, that
everyone wear brown shoes. Does that mean that we have a duty to
wear brown shoes? If so, may any number of trivial duties be derived
from the categorical imperative?
b) I can also will, without obvious problem, that everyone refuse to wear
brown shoes. Does the categorical imperative, then, lead to
contradiction?
c) I can also justify obvious sins by careful phrasing: I can will that anyone
with my name and social security number may steal (the “anyone”
makes it a universal principle).
d) Is there some special kind of contradiction created by the above
examples? It is not always clear what Kant regards as a contradiction.
vi. Kant intends his categorical imperatives to be strictly non-empirical and in
particular not derived from the consequences of actions. But how can we
tell whether keeping promises is a universal duty [above, g.i.] unless we
know the consequences of not keeping promises? Is Kant, then, in a
roundabout way, telling us after all to judge our actions by their
consequences? Is it possible to have deontology without some teleology?
vii. Another way to put this point: We don’t really know what a promise is,
apart from its applications. We don’t know the universal without the
particulars. But we observe the applications, the particulars, in experience.
viii. Summary: The absoluteness of Kant’s norm is empty; it says anything we
want it to say, and it says nothing. The immanence of the norm, the
autonomy of the moral self, also lets us do whatever we want, provided
that reason guides. Kant has failed to establish any principle which
obligates us to transcend self-interest.
17. Idealism (Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Green, Bradley, Bosanquet, Royce, Blanshard).
a. Rejects the Kantian noumenal (“thing-in-itself”). All of reality is interconnected
in such a way as to be knowable by man.
29
b. Morality is irreducibly personal. Only persons have obligations, obey or
disobey.
c. In ethics, then, one is concerned primarily with developing that innate moral
character. How one changes the world or relates to abstract principles are
secondary considerations. When I paint a fence, what I’m really seeking is
inward, satisfaction in completing a task.
d. Ethics, therefore, is essentially self-realization. (Cf. Aristotle). When we make
a moral decision, we are seeking not so much to change the world as to change
ourselves, to express ourselves in some way. As in Kant, the only unequivocal
good is the good will.
e. Unlike Kant, though, idealists see the good will not as looking toward its duty
in the abstract, but also as taking into account its inclinations and environment.
i. Would a truly good will ignore the consequences of its actions upon others
and upon the environment?
ii. Why must duty always be set over against inclination? Is it not better to
enjoy doing good than to do it merely for duty’s sake?
iii. Self-expression cannot be fulfilled unless external and internal barriers are
removed.
f. Self-realization, then, involves relating oneself to the whole universe, to the
“universal reason”.
i. Individual and universal will are one. In willing the will of the universal
reason, I am willing my own will,, and thus am free.
ii. Freedom, then, involves absolute submission to the state and to the duties
of my “station in life”.
g. Wars are essentially conflicts of ideas. The stronger inevitably win out in the
long run.
h. Comments:
i. A more balanced approach than many secular systems.
ii. Here, as in Kant, the self is an autonomous moral legislator.
iii. Since the moral self is ultimately one with the universal reason (God, the
absolute), the moral self is deified in idealism.
iv. For idealism, we cannot know particular duties without relating them to the
whole universal process. Thus we must be either omniscient or incapable of
moral choice.
v. The doctrine of submission to authority [f.ii.] and the inevitable triumph of
right ideology [g] suggests a kind of fatalism that is damaging to ethical
motivation.
vi. The concept of war and political change [g] suggests that might makes
right when motivated by superior ideology. One who is right can do
anything he likes.
18. Karl Marx (1818-1883)
30
a. The most basic forces in history, to Marx are not ideas, as Hegel thought, but
economic relationships, specifically “relations of production” (relations
between owners and workers).
b. The duality between owner and worker inevitably produces class struggle,
since the interests of the two groups are incompatible.
i. Owners inevitably accumulate capital at the expense of the workers, who
get poorer and poorer.
ii. The discrepancy provokes revolution of the lower class against the higher
class, which in turn produces a new social order.
iii. Master-slave, Lord-serf, bourgeois-proletariat: past stages.
iv. The communist revolution seeks to bring about a dictatorship of the
proletariat, and hence ownership of the means of production by the
worker-state.
v. The ultimate goal is the classless society in which the state “withers away”,
no longer needed.
c. Ethical systems attempt to justify interests.
i. The upper class advocates and imposes standards that rationalize and
promote its goals.
ii. As the exploited class becomes self-conscious, it develops its own
revolutionary morality. “Good” is what promotes the revolution; “evil” is
what hinders it.
iii. In the dictatorship of the proletariat, “good” is what promotes progress to
the classless society; “evil” is what hinders it.
d. As the interests of one’s class change, so morality changes. What is “good”
today may become “evil” tomorrow.
e. Christianity (and other religions) represent ideologies concocted to keep the
workers in their place, to make them satisfied with their lot. Even the more
“prophetic” moralists do more harm than good, since they postpone the
revolution by kindling false hopes of reform.
f. Comments:
i. Good insights into the process by which the poor are exploited in the fallen
world. Traditional aristocracies are the best example, but to some extent
western nations also stack the deck against poor and laboring people.
ii. Confidence in the proletariat as revolutionary force, utopianism, often
criticized by contemporary Marxists.
iii. Ethical relativism in Marxism as among the Sophists [6., above]: “Justice is
the interest of the stronger.”
a) This blunts the force of the Marxist critique of exploitation. If the
“justice” demanded by the Marxist is simply a justice promoting his
self-interest, why should his critique be listened to by anyone else.
b) The rejection of any objective meaning to “justice,” together with the
impassioned use of the rhetoric of justice, shows the inseparability of
relativism and absolutism, rationalism and irrationalism. To the Marxist,
31
the ethic autonomously developed by his class-interest is the only ethic,
the absolute presupposition.
c) In the final analysis, no ethical norm. Man does what is right in his own
eyes, and gives himself pseudo-absoluteness.
iv. Here as in idealism, might makes right. And unlike idealism, the progress of
might in history is not accompanied by an objective process of thought; so
the process is irrational.
v. The pseudo-absoluteness of class values leads to totalitarianism; the
prominence of economics over thought leads to cultural impoverishment.
vi. The lack of private economic incentive also feeds the totalitarian impulse: if
people don’t want to work, they must be forced to.
vii. We shall see that the biblical model of society is neither laissez-faire
capitalism (with unrestricted accumulation of capital) nor totalitarian
Communism. Exploitation of the poor is not only preached against in the
Bible; there are institutional structures which, properly engaged, prevent
such exploitation while maintaining a overall free society.
19. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)
a. Man’s most basic desire is not pleasure, but power—its possession and
creative exercise. The ‘will to power” is the basic drive to which all others are
reducible.
b. Moral codes are subordinate to the will to power. They are developed out of
the customs of social groups seeking to keep and increase power.
c. Christianity is essentially a “slave morality”—arising from the self-interest of
the weak and oppressed, from the secret hatred and envy of those more
favored (ressentiment).
i. It is therefore dishonest, because while professing love it is built upon
hatred.
ii. It favors the weak and there impedes the production of truly superior
beings. Nietzsche finds this contemptible.
d. Nietzsche favors a stance “beyond good and evil,” being honest and joyful
about the will to power, recognizing that God is dead and that morality must
be built upon against without him.
e. Comments: Nietzsche is similar to Marx in his view that moral ideas are built
on the self-interest of social groups. His atheism and acceptance of nihilism
have been influential upon the existentialists.
20. Utilitarianism (Jeremy Bentham, 1748-1832), John Stuart Mill, 1806-1873)
a. Utilitarianism is a frankly teleological system, founded (like ancient
Epicureanism) on the premise that pleasure is the supreme good.
b. It differs from Epicureanism chiefly in that it states as the goal of ethics not
only the pleasure of the individual, but the “greatest pleasure for the greatest
number.” For Bentham, this broader goal is a consequence of individual selfinterest.
For Mill, it is based upon the social instinct in mankind.
32
c. Bentham measures pleasures in mainly quantitative ways, s did the ancient
Cyrenaicists. Mill distinguishes various qualities of pleasure, as did Epicurus.
d. In theory, utilitarianism is a simple, practical system. There is one principle—
the greatest pleasure for the greatest number. A good act furthers that
principle; an evil act impedes it. One may, then, simply “calculate” the
goodness or badness of an act by calculating the pleasures and pains produced
by it. The “hedonistic calculus.”
e. Act (Bentham) vs. rule (Brandt) utilitarianism (Mill is intermediate): should the
principle of utility be applied to particular acts, or to rules?
f. Utilitarianism has had considerable influence upon legislation.
g. The democratic process encourages utilitarian thinking to some extent. It is
tempting to think that quantities and qualities of pleasures can be measured by
votes and polls.
h. Comments:
i. Both Bentham and Mill assumed as a matter of course that everyone by
nature seeks pleasure and flees from pain. But is that true? People do
sometimes sacrifice themselves for others. Cf. Nietzsche who argued that
power was more central than pleasure.
ii. One way to overcome the above objection is to define pleasure as
“whatever someone seeks,” whether it be ice cream or a martyr’s death.
That introduces a circularity into the system. (Pleasure is what we seek.
Anything we seek is pleasure.) More seriously, the circularity leaves
unclear just what we are trying to calculate when we seek to calculate
pleasure.
iii. Even if we do seek pleasure and avoid pain in some intelligible sense, does
this imply that we ought to? (“Naturalistic fallacy” question.)
iv. Even if we seek pleasure for ourselves, is it obvious that we seek it for
others? Is it obvious that we ought to seek it for others?
v. The principle of utility is, in the end, like Kant’s categorical imperative, an
“empty,” contentless norm, which gives no ethical guidance, but which
relativizes all concrete decisions. Thus it leaves us free to what is right in
our own eyes—to be autonomous. In effect, utilitarianism tells us that we
ought to seek whatever we seek.
vi. It seems that maximizing happiness is always right. But is it? What if the
majority in a country would take great pleasure in the murdering off of a
minority? Sidgwick, a later utilitarian, dealt with this problem by adding a
new principle to the utilitarian scheme, a principle of “justice,” equal
distribution of happiness.
a) But this principle has no basis in the overall utilitarian system.
b) It is certainly not intuitively obvious. Many people prefer freedom of
opportunity to the forced equal distribution of benefits (capitalism vs.
socialism).
33
vii. The difficulty of calculating the pleasures and pains produced by an act is
so enormous as to require virtual omniscience.
a) There are so many kinds of pleasure and pain.
b) Most pleasures are not easily measurable at all, because many are not
simple body sensations.
c) To complete the calculation, one would have to trace the effects of an
action into the indefinite future, throughout the universe.
d) Note then, as in Kant, Hegel, the ethicist acting as if he were God.
e) The discussion between act- and rule- schools reveals another problem:
that the kind of behavior that brings the most pleasure as an individual
act may not maximize pleasure when made into a general rule. (Cf.
Kant’s insistence that moral principles be generalizable.)
viii. Summary: The principle of utility, therefore, provides no concrete ethical
guidance at all. Its meaning is unclear, its justification weak, its
implementation impossible. Empty transcendence, relativistic immanence.
21. Intuitionism (G. E. Moore, 1873-1958, H. Prichard, W. D. Ross)
a. Moore agrees with the utilitarians that the good is something beyond us,
objective to us, not a quality of the will or mind as in Kant and the idealists.
However, he agrees with Kant that the sublime, unique quality of the moral law
cannot be derived from sense experience.
b. Goodness, according to Moore, is indefinable. It is not pleasure, because it
always makes sense to ask whether a pleasure is in fact good. All other
definitions of “good” similarly fail, including definitions in terms of God’s will.
(“The open question argument”).
i. Reply: Definitions are of many different kinds and serve many purposes. If
indeed a definition must reproduce exhaustively all the meaning and
connotations of the term it defines, then of course “goodness” is
indefinable. But so is every other term on that basis. But definitions
ordinarily claim to be no more than a guide to usage. Moore has not shown
that goodness is indefinable in that sense.
ii. Reply 2: It seems that we can always ask whether pleasure, God’s will,
etc., are in fact good, because our age is in great confusion about the basis
of morality. If everyone agreed that pleasure was the highest good, it
would not make sense to ask if some pleasure were good. Same for the will
of God.
iii. Reply 3: It is sometimes suggested that if we define the good as God’s will,
it is then meaningless to say that God’s will is in fact good. (If I define
“shortstop” as “whatever I am,” then the assertion that I am a shortstop
becomes true, but misleading and trivial.) Answer: such problems arise in
the case of definitions which misuse language. It is not such a misuse to
speak of God as the standard of goodness; rather this definition is required
by revelation.
c. Not only is goodness indefinable, according to Moore, but it is impossible to
derive such goodness from any “natural” state of affairs. Moore accepts
34
Hume’s argument that “is” does not imply “ought”. “Naturalistic fallacy” is his
name for the mistake involved.
i. Moore never clearly defined what he meant by “natural” in this context.
ii. Moore’s only ground for the distinction between “natural” and
“nonnatural” was intuition; but the distinction is supposed to be the ground
for the appeal to intuition (see below).
iii. The “naturalistic fallacy” is a fallacy only if indeed goodness cannot be
defined in terms of natural properties; but Moore has not shown adequately
that these assumptions are true.
iv. Nevertheless, the argument about the naturalistic fallacy is important. A
system of ethics does need to show why its observations yield moral
conclusions. It is, e.g., proper to ask a utilitarian why we ought to seek
pleasure, even granting that we do.
d. Since goodness is not defined by or derived from any “natural” state of affairs,
it is to be regarded as a “nonnatural” property of various states of affairs,
simple and unanalyzable (because not definable).
e. This nonnatural property is discovered by “intuition”.
i. Moore is not clear as to just how this is done. He speaks of holding
something before the mind, contemplating it, identifying it as good or bad.
ii. Is this merely another kind of experience, by which we perceive special “is”
factors from which “oughts” may be derived?
iii. At any rate, it seems to remove goodness from the area of that which is
publicly discussible. It is hard to imagine how anyone could argue that
something is good. But if such arguments are impossible on Moore’s view,
he would seem to be doing injustice to common sense.
iv. At one point, he says that these “nonnatural properties” “depend on”
natural properties, thus compromising the purity of his conception.
v. We have here another example of an empty norm—a norm so transcendent,
so unique, that no one can establish what it says.
vi. Intuitionism prospered in Britain at a time when there was a strong moral
consensus. It was plausible to say that simply “looking at” a moral question
would magically generate agreement. The advent of sharply conflicting
moralities (D. H. Lawrence, e.g.) weakened the consensus.
f. Once the good has been intuited, according to Moore, we can determine what
is right simply by choosing the best means of attaining the good.
i. At this point, Moore’s position is close to utilitarianism. Intuition grasps
the goal; the means are determined by calculation. Henry Sidgwick, a
utilitarian, developed a similar approach.
ii. Other Intuitionists (H. Prichard, e.g.) felt that Moore was not consistent at
this point. Does the end automatically justify the means, as Moore’s view
suggests? Or must we intuit the goodness of means as well as that of ends?
Prichard thought that the goodness of means must also be intuited.
35
iii. But to postulate a multitude of intuitions merely compounds the problems
noted under e., above.
22. Pragmatism, Naturalism (John Dewey; cf. R.B. Perry, William James, many others)
a. Ethics begins by surveying our likes and dislikes, but does not stop there.
Through critical study of the effects of various choices, we discover what we
really want. (So far, a straightforward teleological system.)
b. It is not simply a matter of choosing a goal and then enduring any means to
achieve it. Some goals are highly desirable, but the means are so difficult or
unpleasant that the goal is not worth the effort. One must, therefore, evaluate
the proposed means, then re-evaluate the proposed goal in the light of that
analysis.
c. All desires must figure in the calculation—not only our desires for the distant
future, but our desires for the short term. Even desires normally called “evil”
(desire for unjust revenge, etc.) must be counted in the equation.
d. Though Dewey is very critical of idealism for its a priori thinking and its
unclear language, his own ethic turns out to be, like idealism, an ethic of selfrealization.
“Good” is “the meaning that is experienced to belong to an activity
when conflict and entanglement of various incompatible impulses and habits
terminate in a unified orderly release in action.”
e. There are no fixed goals. Goals may be altered in the process of deliberation
and choice. Even self-realization is not a fixed goal, but a criterion for
determining what goal is really ours at a given moment. (That distinction is not
entirely clear to me.)
f. Different people may have radically different goals. Thee is no reason, in
Dewey’s system, to assume that deliberation might not lead some to
cannibalism, genocide, suicide.
g. Comments:
i. Note rationalism (the emphasis on calculation), irrationalism (the lack of
any fixed standards).
ii. In this system, good behavior amounts to successful behavior. Is this even
a plausible account of what morality is? (Other questions: Is this a “typical
American” ethic? Is it parallel to Dewey’s “operationalist” view of science?
Are we obligated at all to be successful?)
iii. Dewey makes frequent appeal to “fair-mindedness,” “freedom of inquiry,”
etc., as if these were fixed ethical norms. But they cannot be on his basis.
iv. The difficulty of moral “calculation” is even more severe here than in
utilitarianism. There are even more factors to take into account. As in
comment d., we have here a reason why the content of morality for Dewey
is impossible to specify.
23. Emotivism (A. J. Ayer, C. L. Stevenson)
a. Logical positivism insisted that all statements of fact were “verifiable” by
methods akin to those of natural science. The positivists felt that ethical
statements (e.g. “It is wrong to steal.”) could not be so verified: therefore, they
36
said, ethical statements cannot be statements of fact; they must be something
else.
b. Different positivists adopted different analyses: M. Schlick said that ethical
statements were “rules” for behavior, analogous to rules of procedure in
science. R. Carnap said that ethical statements were imperatives, commands,
disguised as indicative statements of fact.
c. The prevalent positivist view, however, was that ethical statements are
characterized by two distinctive elements:
i. They are expressions of feeling. Since those feelings are often feelings
about empirical facts, empirical facts do play a role in ethical discussion.
But ethical statements are not statements of fact.
ii. They also recommend to others the feelings expressed.
d. The feelings expressed cannot be debated as such. Ethical debate centers
around the facts concerning which the feelings are expressed, trying to bring to
attention features of the facts which will change attitudes.
e. Comments:
i. There is an element of emotive expression in ethical language, and these
men are right to point this out.
ii. On this basis, the ethical feelings themselves cannot be judged as right or
wrong. They are responsible to no standard beyond themselves.
iii. Once an ethical debate is reduced to fundamental differences in feeling, no
further debate is possible. In the final analysis, then, the emotivist claims
the right to whatever, upon reflection, he feels like doing.
iv. On this basis, it is difficult to understand why anyone would ever wrestle
with a moral question. How can you wrestle with a feeling? Once we know
how we really feel about a matter, what further question is there? On the
emotivist basis, then, people are simply confused when, even though
knowing how they feel, they continue to ask what is right. This is an
implausible account of the moral life.
v. Irrationalism, then, is manifest here in the relativism of the emotivist
approach. Rationalism is evident in the dogmatic manner in which ethical
statements are reduced to feeling-expressions and the latter rendered
incorrigible.
vi. The defects in the positivist view of meaning have bearing here. Cf. Frame,
“God and Biblical Language”.
24. Other Recent Analyses of Ethical Language
a. R. H. Hare: Ethical judgments (“It is wrong to steal.” “One ought to keep his
promises.”) are prescriptions. That is, they are not descriptions, nor are they
mere imperatives or expressions of feeling. Their force is to tell someone what
to do, not necessarily to influence him to do it.
b. J. O. Urmson: Ethical judgments are a kind of grading. They do not describe
qualities of things or merely express attitudes toward those qualities. Rather,
they put things into various categories, based on prior descriptive analysis.
37
c. S. Toulmin, K. Baier: Moral language states socially-based rules of conduct,
implications of those rules and justifications for them.
d. H. N. Castaneda: Imperatives and their justification.
e. R. B. Braithewaite: Personal subscription to a particular kind of conduct.
f. P. H. Nowell-Smith: Ethical language includes many uses of language of
different sorts which are interrelated in many different ways.
g. Comments:
i. This literature is useful in showing us the variety of ways in which ethical
language is used. My own view is close to Nowell-Smith: We cannot
simply reduce ethical language to any single form of non-ethical language.
a) Look at all that we do using ethical language: advise, exhort, implore,
command, condemn, deplore, resolve, confess, profess, criticize.
b) At different times, different functions are prominent. Scholarly papers
on ethics are more like descriptions; sermons (good ones) more like
exhortations.
ii. Note that in this tradition, the traditional concerns of ethics are abandoned
in favor of “meta-ethics”. These philosophers make no attempt to tell us
what acts are right, or even how to find out what acts are right. They
merely try to tell us what sort of language we are speaking when we
discuss these issues.
iii. This last-named problem can be traced back to G. E. Moore, but in a more
basic way it reveals the overall bankruptcy of non-Christian ethics. Non-
Christian ethics has reached the point of admitting that it has no power to
tell us what we ought to do.
iv. Balancing this irrationalism is the general agreement [see above under
Moore, 21.b.] that goodness may not be defined in terms of God’s will.
Thus, the general admission of ignorance is qualified by a dogmatic,
rationalistic denial of divine authority.
v. These men all agree that at some point ethical discussion must cease—
either with private feelings or social codes or something else. In a sense,
this admission is perceptive. Ethical thought, like all human thought, is
governed by religious presuppositions. And yet most all people are
prompted by conscience to realize that their own feelings, or the will of
society, cannot adequately serve as ethical presupposition. Feelings can be
wrong, or bad. Thus, these modern theories are never fully persuasive,
even to non-Christians themselves.
25. Existentialism (Jean-Paul Sartre; cf. M. Heidegger, K. Jaspers)
a. As an approach to ethics, existentialism is chiefly a kind of moral psychology—
an analysis of the experienced phenomena of moral decision making.
b. The British analysts tend to reduce the difficult moral choices t the simple: a
hard moral choice is like grading apples or following rules, etc. The
existentialists do the opposite: They analyze even “simple” moral choices in
terms of our experiences of deep anguish, despair, etc. (E.g., Sartre: Why do
38
we hate to touch something? Because stickiness is emblematic of every
obstacle to our freedom to control reality.)
c. Comparison with idealism, which is also a kind of “existential” ethic:
i. Both are ethics of self-realization.
ii. For Sartre, ethical choices are realizations of human freedom, not human
“nature” as in idealism. Sartre denies that there is any human “nature” prior
to our concrete life.
iii. Idealism identifies thought and action; existentialism sharply distinguishes
them.
iv. In Idealism, the goal is to become one with the universe. In Existentialism,
the goal is to distinguish oneself from it.
d. Existentialism is consistent atheism, according to Sartre.
i. Therefore, there is no human “nature”. Man has no essence, no definition.
Essence and definition presuppose the work of a designer, making things
for a purpose. Unlike the paper knife, or any other “object,” man has no
designer, and therefore no design.
ii. Atheism also implies that no ethical principle may be accepted on the
authority of someone else. Even if an angel speaks to me, I must decide
whether to obey or not. And I must decide to interpret his words in one
way rather than in another.
e. Man is unique in that he incorporates non-being within himself.
i. Whence comes the concept of non-being? It is not part of “being”!
(Parmenides thought the very idea was contradictory—something which is
nothing.) Sartre answers that non-being is a unique property of man. Man
alone is able to represent to himself things which “are not” (History, the
future, the imaginary). Most significantly, he distinguishes himself from
what he “is not”, his environment.
ii. In moral choice, we seek to express this non-being, particularly the
discontinuity between ourselves and the world.
a) The world exists en soi, “in itself.” It is something “solid,” definable.
b) Only man exists pour soi, “for himself”—self-conscious and conscious
of his uniqueness.
f. Therefore, man is radically free.
i. We are never forced by our past to choose a certain way. Our occupations,
heredity, race, sex, age, etc., never relieve us from the responsibility of
choice. At every moment we choose to be what we are.
ii. There are limits, of course. But those limits themselves are chosen. If I
choose to go to medical school and the admission requirements are too
high, that is a limit. But it is a limit because it frustrates my desire which I
have freely chosen. Even death is a limit insofar as I freely choose to value
life. Interesting insight here.
iii. We are also free in the sense of being responsible to nothing outside
ourselves. There is no universally binding ethical code.
39
g. Freedom means that I am ethically responsible.
i. I have no excuses for the things I do. All I do has been freely chosen.
ii. In every choice I choose a certain image of man. I alone am responsible for
the effects of this choice upon others. This is dreadful freedom.
h. Yet, there are limits.
i. Inevitably, we seek union between the pour soi (ourselves) and the en soi
(the world). For the world limits, opposes our ability to accomplish what
we have chosen to do.
ii. We would like to become both pour soi and en soi—to have both pure
being and freedom, both essence and existence; in other words, we would
like to be God (in whom essence and existence are one). But the concept to
God is self-contradictory.
iii. We want to control the world, but we cannot. Hence, nausea, anguish. The
“other” is the enemy.
i. “Bad Faith”
i. To avoid this anguish, we deny our freedom. We pretend that we are mere
objects, determined by our past or our station in life. We deceive ourselves
into thinking that we re not responsible in the above sense.
ii. To live in this way is “inauthentic existence”.
j. Comments:
i. Sartre is perceptive about the freedom of moral choice. To be sure, on a
Christian basis, sin is a result of divine foreordination and man’s fallen
nature. But there is no excuse. Every actual sin results from a choice for
which man is responsible before God.
ii. In other odd ways, Sartre’s approach mirrors the Christian system, possibly
because the former is such a self-conscious negation of the latter. The
Christian would agree, e.g., that man’s problem arises from his attempt to
be God, to control all things, to evade responsibility.
iii. Sartre’s ethic is based on human autonomy more explicitly, perhaps, than
any other ethic. The Christian must attack this assumption head-on.
iv. Sartre reduces ethics to metaphysics, though he would claim to be averse
to metaphysics. Ethics is a matter, ultimately, of the relations between
being and non-being. Contrary to his claim, this is devastating to moral
responsibility.
v. Sartre’s concept of responsibility is precisely opposite to that of
Christianity. Sartre’s autonomous man is responsible to no one. On a
Christian view, this is a virtual definition of irresponsibility.
vi. Sartre claims on the one hand to free us from all ethical rules
(irrationalism); yet, he stigmatizes a certain kind of behavior as inauthentic
and claims for himself the authority to legislate in the field of morals
(rationalism). He defines man as undefinable, etc.
26. Some More Recent Ethicists
a. Stephen Toulmin (1922-)
40
i. The “good reasons” approach: Follow principles that bring the least
amount of avoidable suffering (negative utilitarianism)
ii. Generally, however, better to use a case method than any universal rule.
b. John Rawls (1921-)
i. Anti-utilitarian, because following the principle of utility can least to
horrible results for some and, therefore, for yourself.
ii. Justice as “Fairness”
A) Each person entitled to the most extensive liberty compatible with the
same liberty for others.
B) Inequalities are justified only to the extent that they are necessary to
help the disadvantaged.
27. Summary
a. Non-Christian ethics fails to separate the three perspectives (normative,
situational, existential).
i. Deontological ethics (Plato, Stoicism, Kant) tries to determine duty
without reference to the consequences of actions. However, without
reference to those consequences it is unclear how our duty in a given
situation can ever be defined.
ii. Teleological ethics (Aristotle, Epicurean, Utilitarian) tries to avoid the
notion of an absolute duty transcending experience. Yet, its own concept
of the ethical goal (pleasure, the greatest happiness for the greatest
number) cannot be shown to be obligatory through experience apart from
transcendent presuppositions.
iii. Existential ethics (Sophism, Aristotle, Kant, Idealism, Pragmatism,
Existentialism) tries to make ethics a purely inward matter. But it cannot
avoid making reference to transcendent duties (cf. ii. above) and external
situations.
b. No system of non-Christian ethics even does justice to its own favorite
perspective.
i. Deontological ethics advocates an empty norm—a norm without clearly
definable content. The norm gives us no clear guidance, and it prevents the
lesser principles from giving us clear guidance, since they are relativized by
the ultimate norm. Thus, there is really no norm at all.
ii. Teleological ethics tries to be empirical, concrete, to avoid reference to
mysterious or transcendent principles. But the basis for obeying their
principles is an ultimate mystery. And the calculation involved in making
ethical choices requires superhuman insight.
iii. Existential ethics tries to do justice to the inner life, but winds up making
man an insignificant cog in some rational (Hegel) or irrational (Sartre)
cosmic process.
c. All non-Christian systems involve rationalism and irrationalism.
i. They claim that autonomous reason is able to determine moral obligation
without divine aid (rationalism).
41
ii. They claim that moral obligation has no higher basis than the workings of
chance, and that therefore there is no absolute truth available to man
(irrationalism).
iii. The rationalism, then, can produce only a formal principle—the good in
general, duty in general, the principle of utility, ethical intuition, etc.—
which turns out to tell us nothing specific and to be without basis.
iv. The radical differences among these thinkers as to the standard of ethics,
the goal (pleasure? power? self-realization? contentment?) and the
motivation call in question the rationality of the project.
v. The irrationalism relativizes not only the alleged norms, but even its own
assertions. Thus, if irrationalism is true, it cannot be true.
d. The non-Christian approach leads to the abandonment of ethics itself.
i. Without any norm or duty, available to human knowledge, ethical study is
not possible.
ii. If there is no moral order in creation, choice is without meaning.
iii. If man is merely a product of chance, decision is without meaning.
iv. Thus, in non-Christian thought, ethics becomes speculation (deontology),
technology (teleology) or psychology (existential).
v. Note, therefore:
a) Abandonment of ethics in favor of meta-ethics in modern languageanalysis
philosophy.
b) Abandonment of any attempt to give ethical guidance in existentialism,
while retaining the vocabulary of ethical responsibility.
c) Modern discussions of ethical issues (abortion, capital punishment, etc.)
without any distinctively moral concern, social utility being the only
principle.
e. Since non-Christian ethics is helpless to do justice to its own concerns, it is
wholly unable to raise objections against Christianity.
i. Objections to the morality of the Bible.
ii. Objections to God’s actions in Scripture—killing the Canaanites, etc.
iii. Objections to the imputation of Adam’s sin, to election, to the
substitutionary atonement, to reprobation and Hell.
iv. Objections based on the problem of evil:
A) On a non-Christian basis, good and evil cannot be meaningfully
discussed; therefore, no problem can be spoken of.
B) Put differently: If a Christian has a problem with evil, the non-Christian
has a problem with good.
C) How, on his basis, can good exist and be distinguished from evil?
D) Yet, as a man in God’s image, he knows at some level of his thought
and life that good exists and has a claim upon him.
42
f. Yet, there are elements in non-Christian ethical systems which can be of use to
Christians. The non-Christian has, though he opposes it, considerable
knowledge of morality.
i. Specific precepts (Romans 1:32; 2:14f.).
ii. He attempts to do justice to the three perspectives, which is important even
to Christian ethics.
iii. He explores the complexity of ethical life.
a) The many elements of ethical language.
b) The difficulty of applying norms to situations.
c) The difficulty of ethical growth in the fallen world.
d) The problems of organizing society into a coherent order.
iv. In recognizing the complexities of ethical decision, the non-Christian is
often more perceptive than the Christian.
PASTORAL AND SOCIAL ETHICS
Lecture Outline, Part Two: Christian Ethics (Basic Principles)
by John M. Frame
I. Christian Ethics: The Normative Perspective (Christian Deontological Ethics)
A. God Himself as Norm:
1. “God is light,” I John 1:5, 4:8ff.
a. A reflection on the nature of God at a very basic level. (Cf. “God is love,”
“God is Spirit”.)
b. By nature, God is self-communicative. Light is something which radiates from
a source to a receiver. Cf. the identification between God and the Word, John
1:1, between God and His name (Psalm 7:17, etc.).
c. But “light,” particularly in this context, is a moral metaphor.
i. To walk in light, in John, is to walk obediently, righteously. Cf. 1:7, 2:9f.
ii. To walk in darkness is to sin: 2:11; cf. John 3:19f.
iii. Therefore, to say that God is light is to assert that God has a perfectly holy
character, worthy of all praise and imitation. This is a pervasive teaching
of Scripture. Simply to ascribe such perfection to God is to accord Him the
status of a norm.
d. The specific function of light in the moral order is to reveal good and evil
(John 1:5ff., 3:19ff., 8:12, 9:5, 11:9ff., 12:35f., 46, I John 1:7, 2:8ff.) and
therefore to guide.
e. As the ultimate ethical guide, who shows us what is right and what is wrong,
God is ultimate norm.
f. By His very nature, then, God establishes and displays what is normative.
2. Union of God Himself with His revelation (cf. course in Scripture and God):
a. Unity between God and His word, name, glory, angel, Son, Spirit.
b. Assertions made about these forms of revelation.
i. Divine attributes ascribed to them.
ii. Uniquely divine acts performed by them.
iii. Worship directed to them.
3. So authority intrinsic to God’s Lordship.
4. Our responsibility: Essentially, imitation of God.
a. Man as vassal king, in God’s image, with responsibilities and privileges
analogous to God Himself.
b. Righteousness as imitation of God’s character: Leviticus 11:44, Matthew
5:44-48, I Peter 1:15f. Implication: The law ultimately coincides with the
character of God. To obey the law is to reflect the character of God. To
disobey the law is to mar that image. The law is a picture of God’s Own
nature.
IIIM Magazine Online, Special Feature, October 15, 2001
44
c. Righteousness as imitation of God’s acts: Exodus 20:11, Deuteronomy 5:15,
Matthew 5:44-48, I John 4:9-11.
d. Righteousness as imitation of Christ:
i. Christ as light, John 1:4, 3:19, 8:12, 9:5, 12:35f., 46.
ii. Cf. Christ as name, glory, angel, Son, Spirit.
iii. Imitation of Christ’s character, acts: Matt. 16:24, 19:21, John 13:14f., 34f.,
17:18, 20:21, 1 Cor. 11:1, Philippians 2:5-11, I Peter 2:21, I John 3:16,
Matthew 16:24)
iv. Imitation of others who imitate Christ, Luke 4:25ff, 1 Cor. 10:1ff, 11:1,
Phil. 3:17, 2 Thess. 3:9, Heb. 6:12, 11-12, James 5:17f.
e. Imitation of God must be carefully distinguished from coveting God’s
prerogatives, seeking to erase the Creator-creature distinction. Imitation is not
seeking identity, but seeking to reflect God’s character within the admitted
limitations of creaturehood. The difference between the two attitudes is
radical—between sin in its essence and righteousness in its essence.
f. At the most basic level, this is the source of ethical obligation. We have
ethical duties because God is intrinsically worthy of obedience and because all
creatures are inevitably confronted with the revelation of His standards.
B. The Word of God as Norm (cf. course in Scripture and God. To say that God’s Word
is authoritative is to say that it is normative for ethics. On that score, no further
argument is necessary.)
1. The Word that comes through nature and history:
a. Clearly reveals God’s glory, His invisible power and divinity (Psalm 19,
Romans 1:20).
b. Clearly reveals His wrath against sin (Romans 1:18).
c. Reveals man’s obligations before God (norms!) (Romans 1:32).
d. Creation in general is not said to reveal the way of redemption from sin;
however, the process of redemptive history described in Scripture does reveal
God’s way of salvation.
e. There is, therefore, a sense in which our “situation” is normative. Thus, the
normative and situational perspectives overlap, as we have seen. We will
consider this more fully in connection with the situational perspective.
2. The Word that comes in persons.
a. The Word is identified with God Himself and with Christ, while the Spirit is
said to bring the revelation home to man’s heart. Thus, God mediates His
Own Word.
b. The Word is also found in man:
i. “The work of the law” written upon the heart of man (Romans 2:14f.): All
men, by nature, have access to the basic requirements of God. These are
essentially the same as those given in the written law, but now
communicated through another medium (cf. Murray on Romans).
ii. In the regenerate, the Word is written on the heart. This is a much more
profound relation between the Word and man than is spoken of in i. The
writing of the Word on the heart implies not only knowledge of obligation,
45
but actual obedience to that obligation, obedience from the heart (Jeremiah
31:33f.; cf. Deuteronomy 6:6, Proverbs 3:3, etc.) Cf. Doctrine of the
Word, “The Word as God’s Presence”.
iii. The example of apostles, teachers: I Corinthians 4:16, 11:1, Philippians
3:17, I Thessalonians 1:6, 2:6, II Thessalonians 3:7-9, Hebrews 13:7,
I Timothy 2:12.
c. This biblical teaching shows the overlap between normative and existential
perspectives. We shall explore these matters further when we consider the
existential perspective.
3. The Word as spoken and written language.
a. To the patriarchs, prophets, apostles.
b. Through them to others.
c. The revelation committed to writing is God’s Own Word also:
i. The covenant document is authored by the Lord and stands as the supreme
norm of covenant life.
ii. The prophetic message claims divine authorship. The prophet is one who
speaks God’s Word.
iii. Same for the apostolic message.
iv. The written Old Testament endorsed by Jesus and the apostles as God’s
word.
v. The writings of the apostles claim the same authority.
4. Unity of the Word: The same God is speaking in all the media, and His message
is consistent in all of them.
a. Nature-history and Scripture
i. Psalm 33:4-11: The written law is binding because it is in essential unity
with the creative word which inevitably comes to pass.
ii. Psalm 19: Note the implicit correlation between the revelation in creation
(1-6) and in the law (7ff.). (Cf. Romans 10:13-17 with 18: Natural and
special revelation as one organism).
iii. Psalm 147:15-20.
b. Person-revelation and Scripture.
i. The “law” in the phrases “work of the law” and “law written on the heart”
is the law of God, particularly that given through Moses. Thus, the “law
on the heart,” far from being an alternative to the written law, is the
written law inscribed upon our being.
ii. The witness of revelatory persons in Scripture (Christ, the Spirit, the
apostles and prophets) unanimously endorses the truth of Scripture.
c. Scripture also validates the others, affirming their unity with itself.
C. Ethics and the Attributes of Scripture
1. Power
a. Through the Spirit, Scripture (as all divine utterances) carries with it the
omnipotence of God.
b. Received in faith, the word is the source of all spiritual blessing, all holiness.
46
c. Received in unbelief, the word brings curse, hardening.
2. Authority (the attribute particularly linked to the normative function)
a. At each turning point in human history, the issue facing man is the question of
how he will respond to the spoken or written Word of God.
i. Genesis 1:28ff: Man’s original task defined by the Word.
ii. Genesis 2:17: The probation which is to determine his status as righteous
or sinner, defined by the Word.
iii. The Fall: Substitution of the word of a talking animal (Satan) for that of
God. Ultimately, substitution of one’s own word for God’s.
iv. Promises to the Patriarchs: given through God’s Word. His people are to
believe and obey, even in the face of apparent evidence to the contrary.
v. The Mosaic Covenant: Integral to it is the book of the covenant.
a) Authorship is by the Lord.
b) Contains stipulations, laws which the vassal (Israel) must obey.
c) Also contains authoritative revelation
i) Of God’s Name
ii) Of the History of Redemption
iii) Of blessings and curses resulting from obedience or disobedience
iv) Concerning Covenant Administration
vi. Jesus
a) His perfect obedience defined by the Law.
b) His life directed by biblical prophecy.
c) He attests the authority of the Old Testament.
d) He sets forth His Own word as the supreme test of discipleship (John
12:47ff., etc.).
e) He provides for additional revelation through His apostles.
vii. Apostles
a) Attest the authority of the Old Testament—cf. II Timothy 3:16;
II Peter 1:21.
b) Claim to speak and write the Words of God.
c) Claim that their words in oral and written form are the supreme test of
discipleship.
viii.The Last Judgment: the criterion will be the word of Christ, John 12:48.
b. As ultimate criterion, Scripture, therefore, is to function as a basic
commitment (or presupposition) for all our life. All choices must be consistent
with the truth of Scripture.
i. Scripture has the ultimate say in defining what our duties are. Ethical
behavior is keeping the word of the Lord, Deut. 6:4ff, Luke 8:15, John
17:6, 1 Tim. 6:20, 1 John 3:24, 5:2-3.
ii. The basis of duty, then, is not a rational abstraction (non-Christian
deontological ethics) nor mere empirical examination of the causes and
47
effects of actions (non-Christian teleological ethics), nor the autonomous
moral self (non-Christian existential ethics).
iii. The autonomy of the reason or the moral self is thus radically rejected, and
with them, the whole tradition of secular ethics.
iv. Positively, the basis of duty is the fact that a personal God, Who deserves
all obedience, has called us in love and authority to be His willing
servants.
v. Why ought we to obey? The answer must be circular: Because God has
commanded it.
a) All ethical systems have a similar circularity when it comes to
justifying their ultimate principle.
b) Non-Christian systems, however, render the very concept of duty
unintelligible.
3. Clarity
a. Clarity has meant in Reformed theology that the way of salvation is plain
enough that the unlearned as well as the learned may have a sufficient
knowledge of it (Westminster Confession of Faith I:vii).
b. A larger point is ethical in nature: We may never use the unclarity of Scripture
(granting that it is unclear in a sense) as an excuse for sin. God always grants
us sufficient means to carry out the responsibilities before us.
c. Christian ethics is practical. The Christian is not faced with the mystery of a
contentless norm (non-Christian deontology), nor with the impossibility of
doing an indefinite amount of calculation (non-Christian teleology), nor with
the impossible responsibility of creating norms out of his own head (non-
Christian existentialism).
4. Necessity
a. We are not permitted to form our moral opinions on the basis of natural
revelation alone. Our fallen mind inevitably twists, represses or otherwise
resists the truth of natural revelation. Romans 1.
b. Without the revelation of Christ, no salvation and therefore no morality is
possible, Romans 10:13-17.
c. The covenant document is the covenant. To break the former is to break the
latter and vice-versa.
d. Without the written Word, we lose the ultimate standard of discipleship
(Above, 2.a.).
e. No Scripture, no Lord, no salvation.
f. Thus, autonomous reason has no role in formulating ethical principles. At this
point, the whole tradition of “secular ethics” is radically rejected.
g. Nor may the traditions of the church ever serve in the unique place given by
God to His written Word.
5. Sufficiency (of Scripture for ethics)
a. Formulation. “The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for
his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in
Scripture, or by good and necessary consequences may be deduced from
48
Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new
revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.” (Westminster Confession of
Faith I:vi).
b. Biblical bases.
i. The polemic against substituting the words of men for the Word of God:
Deuteronomy 18; I Kings 13; Isaiah 29:13; Matthew 15:1-10; Galatians
1:8f.; II Thessalonians 2:2.
ii. The boldness of God’s messengers, standing against the many and
powerful—Moses before Pharaoh, Elijah before Ahab, Isaiah before Ahaz,
Jonah before Nineveh, Paul before Agrippa, Felix Festus—free men! Cf.
Acts 4:19f., 5:29.
iii. The inscriptional curse of the covenant document: cursed be anyone who
adds or subtracts, Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32; Proverbs 30:6; Revelation
22:18.
iv. The sufficiency of Scripture for salvation and good works, II Timothy
3:16f.
v. Christ as the last word of God in the history of redemption (Hebrews
1:1ff.) attested by the apostles (Hebrews 2:4), showing us “all things
pertaining to life and godliness” (II Peter 1:2-11) “until the eternal
kingdom.”
c. Misunderstandings of sufficiency
i. Sufficiency is not limited to “matters of salvation” in some narrow sense.
Rather it is comprehensive. Scripture is sufficient to reveal God’s will in
all matters.
a) The Confession’s statement does mention salvation explicitly;
however:
i) The Confession does not regard salvation as something narrowly
“religious” as opposed to some other area of life. Salvation is of
the whole person.
ii) Besides salvation, the Confession refers to “all things necessary for
His own glory,” “faith,” and “life.”
iii) Nor is it possible to confine “faith” and “life” to some particular
area of life. Faith is what we believe and life is what we do (cf.
Shorter Catechism, Question 3).
b) Scripture places no limit on the sufficiency of Scripture in telling us
the will of God. Rather, it speaks comprehensively of the sufficiency
of Scripture to equip us “for every good work.”
c) This is not to say that Scripture contains all the world’s information or
instructs us in all human skills. The point: in any area of life, our duty
toward God will be an application of Scripture. For the concept of
“application” see section iii.
ii. Scripture is not merely sufficient as a general guide by which we discover
ethical norms beyond Scripture. Scripture contains all the norms (vs. some
Dooyeweerdian representations).
49
a) Scripture draws a sharp distinction between the sufficient word of God
and the traditions of men. To promulgate a norm as God’s will which
is not an application of Scripture is to deny that distinction.
b) This misunderstanding gains its plausibility from the fact that indeed
we do need extra-Scriptural information to apply Scripture. But that
fact does not imply that we have duties which are not applications of
Scripture.
c) Scripture never speaks of any extra-biblical norms which are not also
found in Scripture. Romans 3:1f., in fact, may imply that the
Scriptures contain a much fuller transcript of God’s will than what is
available to the Gentiles in natural revelation.
iii. Scripture is not sufficient merely as a supplement to natural law.
a) Four types of law in Thomas Aquinas’ conception:
i) Eternal law (in God’s mind)
ii) Natural law
(1) The counterpart of eternal law in the created world
(2) Enables us through natural reason to discern what is good
iii) Human law (civil statutes, etc.)
iv) Divine law (Scripture)
(1) Adds what we must know to attain our supernatural end
(2) presupposes the general structure of natural law
b) Comments:
i) Built on a scheme which radically distinguishes between natural
and supernatural ends (cf. critique of this under situational
perspective).
ii) Fails to reckon with the noetic effects of sin.
iii) Puts the Scriptural doctrines on the faulty foundation of apostate
(Aristotelian) natural reason.
iv) Eliminates the sufficiency of Scripture in any meaningful sense.
Not Scripture, but Scripture plus Aristotle becomes our working
ethical authority.
iv. Sufficiency does not rule out the use, even the necessity, of extra-biblical
information in the determination of our duty. (Cf. the relation of
presuppositions to evidences in apologetics.)
a) As we have seen, God is revealed in the whole creation, though that
revelation is opposed by the natural man.
b) Creation is the necessary medium by which the law is applied to
specific situations.
i) Note the “moral syllogism”: Sabbath breaking is wrong Operating
a factory on Sunday is Sabbath breaking Operating a factory on
Sunday is wrong. To evaluate that syllogism, you need to know,
not only something about the Bible, but also extra-biblical
information. Most moral reasoning is of this kind.
50
ii) Scripture itself assumes that man will use his knowledge of
creation in applying God’s law. When God told Adam to abstain
from the forbidden fruit, Adam had the knowledge of creation to
distinguish trees from other things and to single out a particular
tree in view, etc. God does not spell out explicitly in his revelation
all this information. To do so would be ludicrous.
iii) In Scripture, men are rebuked for failing to make such applications
to current questions (Matthew 16:3, 22:29; Luke 24:25; John 5:39f,
Romans 15:4; II Timothy 3:16f, II Peter 1:19-21 [in context]).
iv) If such applications of Scripture were not permitted, we could not
use Scripture at all. We would then lack, in effect, not only the
applications, but the norm itself. The meaning of Scripture is its
application.
c) Thus, human reasoning also has a role in moral decision making. The
sufficiency of Scripture must not be taken to deny that. We are not, of
course, speaking of autonomous reason, but reason subject to God’s
Word (“analogical”). Thus, the Confession speaks of “good and
necessary consequence”.
d) And, thus, the Confession speaks of matters which are to be ordered by
“the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general
rules of the Word, which are always to be observed”.
v. Sufficiency does not rule out the use, even the necessity, of the
illumination of the Spirit for a saving understanding of Scripture, for its
proper use and application. Note statement in confession to this effect.
vi. Summary:
a) Scripture contains all the ultimate norms for the Christian life in all its
aspects.
b) Natural revelation also contains norms, but none that are not in
Scripture also.
c) The norms of Scripture must be applied with the help of natural
revelation and the illumination of the Spirit.
d) Such applications, when correct, set forth the meaning of Scripture, its
demand in a situation, and therefore are not to be regarded as extra-
Scriptural.
d. The “adiaphora” (literally, “no difference,” “indifferent”).
i. History
a) Among the Church Fathers, the term was applied to actions such as
eating meat which were considered to be neither right nor wrong in
themselves.
b) During the Reformation, Luther applied the term to certain Roman
forms of worship which he felt were neither commanded nor forbidden
by Scripture and thus could be practiced by the believer in good
conscience. Later, further controversy developed as to whether
51
Protestant could acquiesce in church rites imposed by Roman Catholic
rulers.
c) In the late 1930’s, there was a split in the Presbyterian Church of
America (later OPC) partly based on the issue of “Christian liberty”.
Specifically, the question was whether total abstinence from alcoholic
beverages was required by Scripture, or whether such use of alcohol
was an adiaphoron.
ii. Adiaphora is an ambiguous and misleading concept.
a) Taken literally (as a Greek neuter plural), it refers to things which are
in some sense “indifferent.” Thus often people refer to meat or wine or
tables or chairs as “things indifferent”. Generally, I think this is a
shorthand way of talking about the human use of the “things”.
However, referring to “things” as indifferent can lead us to forget the
biblical teaching that everything in creation is good (Genesis 1:31;
I Timothy 4:4). There is no biblical distinction between some things
which are good and others which are bad or indifferent.
b) More commonly, the word refers specifically to human acts. However,
we should bear in mind that according to Scripture all human acts are
either pleasing or displeasing to God. I Corinthians 10:31; Romans
14:23; Colossians 3:17, (cf. 23) show that all human acts are under
God’s evaluation as good or bad.
c) One sometimes hears, also, the above in modified form: “acts
concerning which Scripture is silent”. But the above texts indicate that
Scripture speaks concerning all our acts, and so is not silent about
anything. Significantly, I Corinthians 10:31 and Romans 14:23 occur
in contexts dealing with matters which have traditionally been called
adiaphora.
d) A more common and more defensible use of the term is formulated in
this quote from the Lutheran theologian Robert Preus in Baker’s
Dictionary of Christian Ethics “acts or church rites which in
themselves are neither morally right or wrong, but matters of Christian
liberty.” Note the modifying phrase “in themselves”. The point is that
these acts are right in some situations and wrong in others. Surely
there are some actions in this class, but the use of adiaphora and the
phrase “neither morally right or wrong” disguise the fact that every act
in the class is right or wrong in God’s sight.
e) Another possibility: Adiaphora are choices that are not between good
and evil, but between two goods. This is an important concept, but I’m
not convinced that the term adiaphora helps to expound it.
f) Finally: Adiaphora are acts that in a certain situation are neither
commanded nor prohibited by Scripture. Again, this is an important
notion, but the term conceals the important fact that such an act is, not
morally neutral, but good in God’s sight.
g) Conclusion: Adiaphora is used for too many different concepts, some
of them quite unscriptural. Its use in communicating legitimate
52
Scriptural concepts is vitiated by its connotation of moral neutrality.
Such neutrality is everywhere rejected by Scripture.
iii. There is, however, an important point raised by the adiaphora discussion,
and that is the liberty of the Christian from the religious and ethical
ordinances of men, or, in other words, the sufficiency of Scripture for
ethics. (The Christian, to be sure, is subject to the ordinances of men for
the Lord’s sake, I Peter 2:13. But these ordinances can never be his
ultimate authority, and they must be defied when they conflict with divine
revelation.) That this is the central point of the debate can be seen from the
classical “adiaphora-texts”:
a) Romans 14:1-15:13
i) Setting
(1) One party in the church has a religious scruple that the other
does not have.
(a) v. 2: the “strong” eat all things, the weak only herbs.
(b) v. 5: one regards special days, the other does not.
(2) Each is persuaded of the rightness of his actions (6—”unto the
Lord”)
(3) Both groups are Christians (3, 15).
ii) Problems (important to distinguish):
(1) One group is “weak in faith”.
(2) Each group has a wrong attitude toward the other (despising,
judging; 3, 4, 10).
(3) The strong, by his behavior, is placing a “stumbling block” in
his brother’s way.
(a) Not only a cause of grief to him (19), but:
• destructive (15)
• condemnatory (23)
• tending to overthrow the work of God (20)
(The work of God, of course, cannot be overthrown. The
language, however, shows the supreme destructiveness of
the stumbling block.)
(b) Interpretation: the strong, by his behavior, influences the
weak to sin.
(c) The sin of the weak is against his own conscience (20-23)
and thus against God.
(d) The sin in violating his own conscience, doing what he
believes is wrong even though it may be objectively right,
the weak acts out of rebellion, and thus sins objectively
(23)
53
iii) Solutions
(1) On weakness of faith: Paul sides with the “strong” (14:14, 20,
15:1). The weak, then, we assume, are to be won over to the
position of the strong by loving admonishment from the Word.
(2) On the disputatiousness: Don’t despise or judge one another.
Treat one another as brothers, in Christian love. [Note: this is
not inconsistent with (1)]
(3) On the stumbling block: Do not induce a weak brother to sin
against his conscience. If he cannot be instructed, do not use
any pressure to get him to do something he believes is wrong.
iv) The main thrust of Paul’s injunction: Do not play God. God, not
man is the judge of right and wrong.
(1) Both “strong” and “weak” have compromised that principle—
the weak by “judging” the strong and the strong by “despising”
the weak.
(2) The strong have also, in effect, “played God,” setting their own
influence over against what the weak consider to be the
command of God.
(3) Note Paul’s sustained emphasis throughout the passage on God
as the supreme ethical judge: 3ff., 6-12, 17f.
(4) The term adiaphora, with its connotation of moral neutrality,
suggests the very opposite of what Paul is stressing at such
length. Paul wants, above all, to tell us that all our actions must
be done “unto the Lord” and with faith (23).
(5) The notion, then, that the church may not teach people
authoritatively concerning matters of food and drink is
decisively rejected by this passage.
b) I Corinthians 8-10
i) Setting
(1) Food offered to pagan idols was being sold in the market,
possibly indistinguishable from other food and, thus, hard to
avoid.
(2) Question: Do we endorse idolatry by eating such food? (Note,
in context, Paul’s strong condemnation of idolatry, 10:1-22, in
particular connection with eating and drinking, 10:16ff. Note
also the danger suggested concerning a possible sacramental
union with a demon through participation in sacrifice,
analogous to the union with God in the Lord’s Supper, 10:16-
21, cf. 11:27-34.)
(3) Again, one party has a scruple (They “lack knowledge,” [1, 7,
10f.] and have a “weak conscience,” [7, 9, 10-12]); the other
does not.
(4) Both groups are Christians (11f.)
54
ii) Problems (Same as those in Romans).
(1) Ignorance, weakness (8:1, 7, 9-12)
(2) Contentions (a general problem at Corinth, 1:11. Note the
urging to love in 8:1-3).
(3) Stumbling block: 8:7, 9ff. The weak sees the strong eating and
is enticed into eating himself—out of a rebellious spirit. The
result is that the weak is guilty of idolatry.
iii) Solutions
(1) The strong is right, because an idol, unlike God, has no power
to curse those who eat his food. An idol is nothing (4ff.). Our
God is the only Lord (cf. 8:8, 10:26).
(a) Note well: The emphasis is that we must not ask what the
demon thinks about our eating, but what God thinks of it.
(b) Thus again, the stress is on the exclusive authority of God
over our behavior. The point is that these matters of
“indifference” or “neutrality”.
(c) If one eats to the glory of God, the act is good (10:31); if
you do it out of rebellion against God, then you are in
league with devils—not because of the food, but because of
your sinful behavior.
(d) Weakness of faith is failure to understand this principle. Cf.
the young Christian who burns his idols, throws away his
rock music, vs. the older Christian who collects idols and
rock records for their artistic value.
(2) Contentions: Be loving (8:1-3), edifying (10:23f.). Do not exalt
your own “knowledge”. (“I am a Westminster graduate; I know
the Greek. You are a benighted fundamentalist.”)
(3) Stumbling block: Seek to teach the weak, but, if that is not
possible, and if you might cause him to violate his conscience,
abstain, 8:7, 9ff. God’s concerns, not mine, must govern my
behavior.
iv) Note again, the inadequacy of “adiaphora” to convey the moral
intensity of the situation. There is nothing morally neutral about
becoming an idolater through violation of conscience.
I Corinthians 9 is especially significant in showing the intensely
moral considerations which govern Paul himself in decisions on
how to use the good things of creation.
c) I Timothy 4:1-5: Some advocate abstinence from marriage and meats.
The operative point is that God has created all things good, and thus,
man has no right to despise them.
d) Colossians 2:16f.: Some try to “judge” others about feasts, etc. The
relevant point in context is the triumph of Christ over principalities
and powers. We hold fast to him, not to men or angels. Again, the
opposite of ethical indifference is presented.
55
D. Parts and Aspects of Scripture as Norms
Scripture is a diversity in unity. In seeking to use Scripture as our ethical norm, we
cannot avoid the question of how the various parts and aspects are related to one
another. Ethics presupposes hermeneutics (as well as vice-versa!).
1. Different Forms of Language
a. Scripture contains many kinds of language: imperatives, indicatives,
questions, promises, prose, poetry, song, law, history, epistle, proverbs,
parables, drama, symbolism, emotive expression, etc.
b. When doing theology, we are tempted to think of Scripture as a collection of
indicatives; when doing ethics, we are inclined to think of Scripture as a
collection of commands. There is truth in both of these approaches [e., below],
but both can mislead.
c. Since all Scripture is profitable for godliness (II Timothy 3:16f.), we dare not
exclude any passage or any type of language in formulating a Christian ethic.
The ethical implications of the Psalms, of Ecclesiastes, of the parables, etc.,
must all be done justice.
d. It may not always be possible to do justice to such diverse media merely by
translating them into scholars’ prose. At times, ethical admonition may have
to reflect the variety of Scripture itself—using poetry, symbol, parable, etc.
e. Each type of language is a perspective on the whole, as well as an element
within Scripture. In a sense, all Scripture is indicative because all Scripture
contributes to our belief system. All Scripture is imperative because all
Scripture contributes to our knowledge of our duty before God. Yet it is
dangerous to reduce our image of Scripture to one such perspective, denying
the existence or importance of others.
f. The structure of the suzerainty treaty—a unity made up of different kinds of
language (name, history, law, vow, administration) illustrates how a document
with many functions can exercise a unified authority.
2. Gospel, Law, and Redemptive History (or: the relation of biblical and systematic
theology in the development of a Christian ethic). Compare discussion of
“biblico-theological extremism” under the definition of “moralism” in the
beginning of this outline.
a. In many ways, it can be shown (cf. courses in hermeneutics, homiletics,
biblical theology) that Christ is the “center” of Scripture, and, more
specifically, that the events of his death, resurrection, ascension, and sending
forth the Spirit at Pentecost are of central importance in Scripture. These are
the events to which the Old Testament looks forward and upon which the New
Testament reflects.
b. Does this imply that Scripture is most basically to be characterized as a
redemptive history?
i. Certainly, Scripture is a history in that it records and interprets the
historical events mentioned earlier, and in their historical context.
ii. Scripture, however, is different from modern histories.
56
a) It includes, for instance, a law code, a song book, a collection of
proverbs, a set of letters—and not merely as historical source-material!
b) All of these, and the historical material too, are intended not merely to
give us historical information, but to govern our lives here and now
(Romans 15:4; II Timothy 3:16f., etc.).
c) As often pointed out, the Gospels are not biographies of Jesus. They
are Gospels. Their purpose is not merely to inform, but to elicit faith.
Most histories do not have this purpose.
iii. It would, of course, be possible to define “history” so broadly as to include
all these functions. One could speak of the Psalms and Proverbs as in
some sense “interpretation” of historical events. But such definitions are
so far removed from normal language as to be misleading. “Interpretation”
in the usual sense is not the chief purpose of Psalms and Proverbs.
iv. I am therefore willing to say that Scripture is a redemptive history, but I
am reluctant to say that this is the only way or the most important way of
characterizing Scripture.
v. At the very least, we would have to modify the phrase “redemptive
history” in order to say that Scripture, unlike any other history, is
normative redemptive history—history intended not only to inform, but to
rule the reader (II Timothy 3:16f.).
vi. But to say that Scripture is normative history is to say that Scripture is not
only history, but also law, and that “history” and “law” are at least equally
important characterizations of Scripture.
vii. Such correlation between history and law is to be expected if, as Kline
argues, Scripture is a “suzerainty treaty”.
viii.Scripture is also Gospel—its intention is to bring the good news of Christ
to elicit faith in Him.
ix. I would argue that there are still other ways to characterize Scripture: It is
also promise, wisdom, comfort, admonition. Cf. the variety of the treaty
form.
x. Does this approach compromise the emphasis of Scripture upon Christ and
upon His death, resurrection, etc.?
a) Christ is not only central to history, He is central also as the eternal
lawgiver (Word), as the wisdom of God, as prophet, priest, and king. It
therefore could be argued that a more flexible approach to Scripture
does more justice to the centrality of Christ than does an approach
which gives primacy to history.
b) The death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ and the Pentecostal
outpouring are important not merely as historical happenings (though
over against the skepticism of modern thought, it is vitally important to
affirm them as historical happenings). They are also vitally important
in their present impact upon us, not least in their normative function.
Romans 12:1ff.; Ephesians 4:1ff.
57
c. Ought ethics and theology to be “controlled” by redemptive history?
i. They ought to be controlled by everything Scripture says. This includes
not only its statements of historical fact and its interpretations of the
meanings of history, but also its commands, poetry, its systems of truth,
etc.
ii. Since theology is to be controlled by everything in Scripture, it is to be
controlled by redemptive history, but not by that alone. Theology (ethics)
must be aware of the process of redemptive history, must take it into
account, must say or do nothing that compromises the teachings of
Scripture about this history.
iii. Theology and ethics must be equally concerned to do justice to the
normative teaching of Scripture, its power to change the heart, etc.
d. Relations between ethics and redemptive history
i. Redemptive history is the setting in which the law is given. We must
understand redemptive history in order to understand and apply the law.
ii. The grace of God given in redemptive history gives to us the righteousness
of Christ by imputation and the power to keep the law by sanctification.
iii. Reflection upon redemptive history motivates us to obey. We obey, not
simply because we are commanded to, but out of gratefulness for what
God has done and an in-wrought desire to obey. Exodus 20:2;
Deuteronomy 5:15; Colossians 3:1ff.
iv. Our fundamental obligation, to imitate the righteousness of God, is not
created by redemptive history. It dates from creation and is binding upon
all people, whether redeemed or not.
v. Ethics, then, involves description of the redemptive-historical process, but
not only that. It also involves the imperative of the law, the promise and
comfort of the gospel, the powerful poetry and wisdom and parable which
drives the message into the heart.
vi. Since ethics is inevitably application, it must not only look back upon
redemptive history (and ahead to the parousia), but must focus upon the
present, exhorting us to our present duties in the name of Christ.
3. Law and Gospel
a. The Lutheran Distinction (Formula of Concord, Article V.)
i. Law: “properly a doctrine divinely revealed, which teaches what is just
and acceptable to God, and which also denounces whatever is sinful and
opposite to the divine will.”
ii. Gospel: “the doctrine which teaches what a man ought to believe who has
not satisfied the law of God, and therefore is condemned by the same. . . .”
b. The Formula teaches that even though the Gospel preached by Christ and the
disciples involves a call to repentance (Mark 1:1ff, 1:15, Luke 24:46-47, Acts
20:21), the Gospel when contrasted in general with law makes no such
demand. It comforts against the terrors of the law by bidding us look to Christ
alone (Article V:vi)
58
c. In Lutheranism, the distinction between law and gospel is the key to Scripture.
They consider many others, including the Reformed, to be confused as to the
distinction.
d. The Reformed, while not denying the legitimacy of the distinction, tend to
speak of “law” and “gospel” in broader, and, to my mind, more Scriptural
terms.
i. The Lutheran sees law almost exclusively as threat and terror, while the
Reformed put more emphasis upon law as the delight of the redeemed
heart (Romans 7:22; Psalm 1, 119:97; etc.), the law as a gift of grace
(Psalm 119:29), law as “way of life,” (Leviticus 18:5; Deuteronomy 5:33,
8:3, 11:13-15, 28:1-14, 30:11-20, 32:47; Psalm 119:29; etc.).
ii. The Lutheran position tends to abstract the Gospel from the demand of
repentance, feeling that such a demand is not properly good news. But, in
Scripture, the demand is good news because it arises out of the fact that
God has acted, and man may now respond.
e. The three uses of the law
i. Enumeration:
a) “External discipline”—to restrain sin in society (Formula of Concord,
Article VI)
b) Law as a means to drive men to Christ by exposing their sin.
c) Law as a rule by which the regenerate may shape their lives.
ii. The Lutherans accept all three uses of the law (as over against some
among them who denied that the law should be preached to the
regenerate). They base this use of the law upon the incompleteness of
sanctification in the regenerate, and therefore, the believers continuing
need of threat, “sharp urgency”.
iii. Works of the Spirit, however, are such as can be produced by no threat or
constraint whatever. (“. . .as if they had never received any precept, had
never heard any threats, and expected no remuneration.”) As such,
believers “live in the Law”; i.e., they conform to the law, but not by threat
or constraint.
iv. The Reformed stress that the preaching of the law need not be mere threat
or constraint, but is a gift of grace.
v. The distinction between works done under constraint of law and works
done in the Spirit is not as simple as pictured in the Formula.
a) Agreed: Works done merely out of constraint and not out of love and
gratefulness to God are not good works at all.
b) However, living in the Spirit is living in response to a command
(Galatians 5:16, etc.). It is preposterous to suppose that obeying this
command puts us in the sphere of the flesh.
c) It should not be supposed that sanctification is achieved without
struggle, without constraint.
4. Law and Grace (see Murray, 181ff.)
a. What law can do:
59
i. commands and demands
ii. pronounces approval and blessing
iii. pronounces judgment upon infractions
iv. exposes, convicts of sin
v. excites, incites to worse transgression
b. What law cannot do:
i. anything to justify the sinner
ii. anything to relieve the bondage of sin
c. Being “under law”:
i. being under the dominion of sin (Romans 6:14)
ii. being under the ritual law of the Mosaic economy
iii. obligated to obey God in Christ.
d. The Christian under the law of God: Matthew 5:17-20; I Corinthians 9:20f.;
Romans 6:14, 7:1-6; I Corinthians 6, 8.
5. Old and New Covenants
a. In both covenants, there is demand for obedience and the promise of salvation
by grace alone through faith (Murray, 194-201).
b. Both covenant documents are authoritative for men today: II Timothy 3:16f.;
Matthew 5:17-20.
c. What change is brought about by the establishing of the New Covenant?
i. Now, we live looking back on the accomplishment of redemption, not
looking forward to it as under the Old Covenant.
a) Thus, the believer has a much greater power to do good works because
of the great fullness of the Spirit poured out on Pentecost.
b) Thus, the believer has a firmer assurance that his sins are forgiven.
c) Thus, he has a stronger motive to holiness:
i) Gratefulness for the love shown to him in Christ.
ii) A firmer assurance that sin can be overcome by the power of God.
iii) The example of Jesus’ love.
d) Hence, appeal to the work of Christ and its results (presence of the
Spirit, unity of the body, etc.) become the chief motivations of New
Testament ethics. It is these facts, more than the mere fact that holiness
is God’s will, which motivates the exhortations of the New Testament.
(Note “therefore” in Romans 12, etc.)
e) The NT does sometimes appeal to the law, however, to motivate
obedience (Matt. 5:17-20, 7:12, 12:5, 22:36-40, 23:23, Luke 10:26,
John 8:17, Rom. 8:4, 13:8-10,1 Cor. 9:8-9, 14:34, Gal. 4:21-22, 2 Tim.
3:16-17, Jas. 2:8.)
ii. What change is there in the believer’s obligation as a result of the
covenantal change? What stays the same?
a) The fundamental requirement of love is the same (Deuteronomy 6:5;
Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 22:37ff.; parallels; John 13:34f., many
60
Johannine parallels) with a new clarity, motivation and example (“as I
have loved you”).
b) Our obligation to keep the law in general remains intact, Matthew
5:17-20.
c) While the whole law remains binding, its application is different in
many respects.
i) A change of situation always brings about a change in application.
The application of the Torah to city life is different from its
application to a largely agricultural society.
ii) The change from Old Covenant to New brings about some rather
broad changes in the situation in which we apply the law.
(1) In general, the Old Covenant is related to the New as shadow
to substance, as type to antitype. Since the reality had not yet
come, God’s people in the Old Covenant period knew of Christ
only through symbolic prophecies, types, ordinances. Since
Christ has come, and with him, the New Covenant revelation,
we are not restricted to such shadows for our knowledge of
Christ. Positively, Christ, Himself, is revealed as the sufficient
mediator and sacrifice.
(2) Unlike the Old, the New Covenant community is not identified
with a particular national and political unit. The New Covenant
order, therefore, does not demand loyalty to one earthly
kingdom among others. Positively, Christ is the King in a new
international commonwealth, a new people of God.
(3) The New Covenant puts into effect a written canon that will
not be added to until the Parousia. The former special office of
prophecy is fulfilled in Christ as the mediator of the New
Covenant revelation.
(4) Thus, the New Covenant puts into effect crucial changes in the
priestly, kingly, and prophetic functions.
iii) Since the situation changes in these ways, the status of the law
changes as well.
(1) Christ as priest fulfills the law of expiation.
(2) Christ as king fulfills the civil law.
(3) Christ as prophet fulfills the moral law.
6. Moral, Ceremonial, and Civil Law
a. The traditional discussion
i. The Westminster Confession (XIX:i-v) distinguishes three kinds of law:
a) Moral, given at creation, summarized in the Decalogue, perpetually
binding and useful under the gospel (i, ii, v, vi)
b) Ceremonial, prefiguring Christ and giving moral instruction, all of
which are abrogated under the New Testament (iii).
61
c) Judicial (sometimes called civil), given to govern Israel as a political
entity. These expired with that state, “not obliging any other now,
further than the general equity may require.”
ii. Controversy has existed:
a) Concerning the three-fold distinction itself.
b) Concerning the status of the civil law.
b. Evaluation of the three-fold distinction.
i. The distinction is not found explicitly in Scripture. Scripture speaks
simply of “the law,” both positively and negatively. It is “the law” which
Jesus did not come to destroy (Matthew 5:17-20). It is “the law” to which
men are in bondage because of sin. It is “the law” from which we are set
free in Christ. The Old Testament, too, does not list its statutes in such
neat groups. “Moral,” “ceremonial,” and “civil” statutes are placed
alongside each other and mixed together with no apparent concern about
possible category-confusion.
ii. It is important, therefore, to say that the most basic changes wrought by
the New Covenant in this area affect, not one part of the law, but the law
as a whole.
iii. It is not always easy to distinguish these three categories.
a) They don’t come neatly labeled in the OT. Typically, they are mixed
together.
b) Laws traditionally called “ceremonial” do not pertain only to
ceremonies, but to many other things, like diet, clothing, economics
(the Sabbatical years and Jubilee), etc.
c) The Confession’s discussion makes it look as though the way to find if
a law is currently binding is to determine first which of the three
categories it belongs to. However, it more often happens that we
determine which laws are binding first, and then decide which bin to
put them in.
iv. Nevertheless, the three-fold distinction does reflect a genuine distinction
within the divine government—the prophetic, priestly, and kingly
functions.
a) Moral law corresponds closely to the prophetic office, which sets forth
God’s demand for righteousness.
b) Ceremonial law (called law of expiation in an earlier discussion)
corresponds to the priestly office, which concerns particularly man’s
need of expiation from sin.
c) Civil law corresponds to the kingly office, which governs the covenant
commonwealth.
c. Evaluation of the discussion concerning continuation / abrogation.
i. To summarize our earlier discussion: It is best to say that the law as a
whole is subject to changes in application because of the advent of the
New Covenant.
62
ii. Ideally, then, it is best not to raise the question in terms of the general
categories moral, ceremonial, and civil. Rather, having seen something of
the overall change in our relation to the law, we ought then to study each
particular statute to see how it is affected by the overall change.
iii. This task, however, can be facilitated if we learn to make at least rough
groupings among types of laws, determining those groupings primarily by
the functions of the laws in the history of redemption. The distinction
between moral, ceremonial, and civil, then, can be an aid to us.
iv. The ceremonial law.
a) Sacrifices and cleansing regulations are no longer literally binding
because they are but shadows of the work of Christ (Colossians 2:13-
17; Hebrews 9:8-10; 10:1-18).
b) Dietary laws are not literally binding because they are a form of
cleansing law, prefiguring the purity of Christ. Enforced under the
New Covenant, they would encourage the misconception that the
Kingdom of God is food and drink, Mark 7:14-23, esp. verse 19;
I Corinthians 8-10; Romans 14; Acts 10:9-16, 11:2-10.
c) The calendar of feasts is treated similarly, Colossians 2:16f.
d) The fundamental requirement of these laws is still binding, that we
approach the holy hill of God with clean hands and a pure heart, i.e.,
with the righteousness of Christ. We come to God bearing sacrifice—
the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ.
e) The ceremonial laws continue to instruct us concerning that
righteousness.
f) Do some of the “ceremonial” laws bear upon human health and safety?
More work is needed on this subject.
v. The moral law.
a) In general, the authority of the “moral” statutes is reaffirmed in the
New Testament and most all of the Old Testament ethical principles
are specifically reinforced.
i) Statements about the authority of the law (Matthew 5:17ff.) or the
moral teaching of the Old Testament (II Timothy 3:16f., etc.).
ii) Authoritative use of the Old Testament in moral discussion:
Matthew 5-7; James 2:8; Mark 7:10; Romans 13:8-10; Ephesians
6:2f., etc.
iii) Reiteration of Old Covenant moral principles, Ephesians 4-6, etc.
b) Changes
i) The law is no longer a curse and threat because of Christ.
ii) Since our sins are forgiven and the Spirit dwells within, the law is
now in a greater sense than under the Old Covenant, a delight.
iii) We have a stronger motivation to holiness.
iv) The New Covenant revelation completes the canon. The moral law
has been revealed once-for-all, and our business is application of
that, not waiting expectantly for further revelation.
63
vi. The civil law (Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics, Poythress, The
Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses).
a) Obvious Changes
i) The New Covenant no longer identifies the Kingdom of God with
an earthly political unit. We belong to a heavenly city, under
Christ, the King. Thus, there is no requirement of loyalty to
national Israel. The Kingdom of God is not to be defended by the
sword.
ii) Some of the civil laws clearly are addressed to a particular
historical situation, e.g., the division of Canaan into portions for
the various families of Israel, the consultation of Urim and
Thummim, etc.
b) Does the kingship of Christ, however, eliminate the need for a
distinctively Christian political order?
i) In the Old Testament, the ultimate kingship of God was not
compromised by the existence of a temporal human kingship.
ii) The New Testament teaches that in the new dispensation, God
appoints rulers for His righteous purposes (Romans 13:1-7).
iii) Since all things are to be done to God’s glory, we should expect
God to provide us with at least general norms for righteous rule.
c) The Old Testament theocracy may be seen as a sort of “incarnation”
(Don’t press the analogy suggested by that word!): the kingdom of
God existing in the form of human social institutions.
i) The theocratic statutes presuppose that paradoxical situation, and
thus may not be naively applied to any other situation.
ii) With the coming of the New Covenant, political institutions on
earth lose their “divine nature”.
iii) Nevertheless, as a form of human government promoting social
order, the statutes must be seen as the wisest ever given
(Deuteronomy 4:7f.)
iv) In the Old Testament period, even pagan rulers were judged for
their failure to rule righteously, righteousness being defined by the
law of God. Thus, the Old Covenant norms for politics were not
seen as applying exclusively to Israel (cf. Bahnsen).
v) It is inevitable, then, that we shall seek to imitate the Old Covenant
theocracy in developing a Christian politics, somewhat as we seek
to imitate the righteousness of the incarnate Christ.
vi) Imitation of Old Testament Israel, like imitation of Christ, is
fraught with peril. We will often be tempted to claim for ourselves
what was unique to the theocracy. On the other hand, we may
dismiss as unique to the theocracy something that God wants us to
observe. The job is difficult.
d) Problem Areas.
i) Sabbatical years and the Jubilee
64
(1) Analogous to yearly feasts or to weekly Sabbath?
(2) Are they moral, ceremonial, or civil? (Perhaps, the distinction
breaks down here.)
(3) If civil, are they distinctive to Israel or a divine model for all
civil order?
(4) If limited to Israel, how may we in the present situation
emulate the equity provided by these laws?
ii) Tithe structure.
iii) Penalty structure (same problems).
e) Summary: I’m straddling the fence on this issue. I hope I can resolve it
some in my own mind because it is crucial in determining our social
and political responsibility. In general, however, I would say that the
burden of proof is on those who would deny the relevance of some
civil statute to our time.
7. The Love Commandment and Other Commandments
Note: more will be said about the nature of love under the existential perspective.
Our present purpose is to sketch the relation between the love-command and the
other commands. By “love commandment,” we mean the commandment to love
God and, thus implicitly and on that basis, the command to love one another.
a. Prominence of the Love Commandment.
i. Love as the covenant allegiance owed by a vassal to he suzerain.
ii. Prominence of love (= exclusive covenant loyalty) in the Decalogue.
(“Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”)
iii. Prominence of love in the shema, the fundamental confession of faith of
God’s Old Covenant people (Deuteronomy 6:4ff.)
iv. Prominence of love in Jesus’ teaching (particularly love of enemies, e.g.,
Matthew 6:43ff.).
v. Love as the “new commandment” identifying the New Covenant people of
God, John 13:34f., 15:12, 17; I John 2:7ff., 3:11ff., 4:7ff.
vi. Emphases on love in New Covenant ethics: I Thessalonians 4:9; I Peter
1:22; Hebrews 13:1.
vii. Love as the highest Christian virtue: I Corinthians 13; I Peter 4:8.
viii.Love as fulfillment of the law: Matthew 22:37-40; parallels; Galatians
5:14, 6:2; Matthew 7:12; Romans 13:8ff.
b. Love is a commandment, part of the law.
i. This fact immediately rules out any opposition or antithesis between love
and commandments in general.
ii. Any arguments directed against the keeping of commandments in general
bear with equal weight against obedience to the love commandment.
c. The love commandment requires obedience to the whole law of God.
i. In the covenant structure, the commandment to love the Lord (exclusive
covenant loyalty) is a prologue to the detailed prescriptions of the law.
65
Love is demonstrated by obedience to the prescriptions. Note connection
in Deuteronomy 6:4ff.
ii. “Fulfillment” of the law implies that loving behavior will carry out the
law’s requirements.
iii. One who loves Jesus will keep his commandments, John 14:15, 21, 23,
15:10; I John 2:3-5, 3:21ff., 5:3. Cf. correlation of “light” and “love” as
equally ultimate characterizations of God in I John.
iv. Scripture never suggests that one must ever disobey a divine command to
fulfill the law of love.
d. Love is a provocative characterization of the law.
i. Even though love involves obedience to law, loving and obeying are not
merely synonymous. Although they require the same thing, they
characterize it in different ways.
ii. Love focuses more on the motive of the heart (cf. later under existential
perspective), obedience more on the actions performed.
iii. The emphasis on love, therefore, warns us that slavish obedience is not the
goal of the law. Obedience out of grudging, unwilling submission is not
what the law requires. Rather, God calls us to lives of earnest concern,
genuine care, for God and one another.
e. Misunderstandings
i. Schleiermacher: law is concerned only with the outward at. Therefore, the
love commandment is not a commandment at all.
ii. Brunner, Bonhoeffer: Since God’s will for me is always absolutely
concrete, law can be only a general guide. Knowledge of God’s will
comes about in a momentary inspiration in a situation.
iii. J. Fletcher, Situation Ethics: There are no rules. Laws are general
guidelines, maxims, but none is absolute. Ultimately, we must simply do
what is the most loving thing in a particular situation.
a) Contradiction: Fletcher renounces rules (irrationalism) but sets forth
his own rule (do what is loving in a situation) as absolute
(rationalism). (His attempt to show that his rule is not a rule in
unconvincing.)
b) Fletcher’s rule lacks all content, and, thus, can give no moral guidance.
c) Fletcher’s notion of love is unbiblical. He denies the biblical
relationship between love and the other commandments.
d) Implementing the norm of love faces the same difficulties as
implementing the principle of utility.
e) Thus, Fletcher’s arguments (often dogmatic assertions) about what
love requires are supremely unconvincing.
8. The Decalogue and the Other Commandments (see introduction to Part Three).
9. Priorities Among Divine Commands.
a. Every legal obligation (in human or divine law) is essentially obligation to a
legal system. That system includes not only specific precepts, but also broader
principles, judicial arrangements for applying the law, executive arrangements
66
for enforcing it, etc. The system as a whole determines what use is to be made
of any part of it.
b. In any legal system, certain principles are regarded as more important than
others: “I desire mercy and not sacrifice,” Matthew 9:13; “Leave your gift at
the altar and be reconciled to your brother,” Matthew 5:24; “Weightier matters
of the Law,” Matthew 23:23. Cf. Psm. 78:17, 32, 56, Ezek. 8:6, 13, 15, Matt.
12:31-32, 18:6, Luke 12:47-48, John 19:11, Heb. 2:2-3, 10:29, 1 John 5:16,
WLC 151-52.
c. In any legal system, it is assumed that, in emergencies, the normal regulations
may be transcended by larger principles such as the maintenance of human
life and safety (Matthew 12:4, parallels), obedience to higher authority (Acts
5:29; cf. Romans 13; I Peter 2:13ff.)
i. Norman Geisler: “graded absolutism”
ii. W. D. Ross: “prima facie duties.”
d. Thus, the application of any biblical commandment is subject to the broader
principles of biblical ethics. In any particular situation, a lesser principle may
be transcended by a higher one.
i. This is not antinomianism: we are talking about “higher” and “lesser”
principles within the law itself, not exceptions to law. Actions in accord
with this principle are obedient to the law in its full meaning.
ii. This must be done carefully. This principle is not a warrant, e.g., to
disobey the seventh commandment in the name of love since love is a
higher and broader principle. We must guard against replacing the biblical
norms with the lusts of our own hearts and using the above principle as
rationalization.
e. A further example of this principle: Not every biblical commandment can be
carried out immediately by every individual.
i. We tend to think of obedience as instant response to divine commands:
biblical pictures of Abraham, Jesus, and others reinforce this picture.
ii. Thus, sermons often suggest that we ought to drop whatever we are doing
and do what the sermon calls for: persistent prayer, evangelism, pursuit of
social justice, visiting the sick, feeding the poor, studying the Scripture,
etc.
iii. However, we clearly cannot do all of these all of the time. We are finite,
and our schedules are limited. We must frequently stop obeying one
command in order to obey another. And Scripture does not assume
otherwise. It assumes that some commands may not be carried out
“immediately”.
iv. It also recognizes that such activities are fundamentally the responsibility
of the church as a whole, not of each individual within the church. No
individual could single-handedly evangelize everyone in Burma or pray
for all the lost in India.
v. Each individual is expected to play a role in the fulfillment of these tasks.
The role one plays will depend at least partly, on his own gifts. Not
everyone is expected to play the same role.
67
vi. It should not be assumed, therefore, that one who spends ten hours a week
helping the poor is necessarily more obedient than someone who spends
ten hours in prayer or visiting the sick.
vii. Therefore, in addition to the general system of “priorities” set forth in the
law itself [c., d. above], each individual must develop for himself, in the
context of the church and obedience to the Word, a personal set of
“priorities” which may be different from those of anyone else.
viii.It seems odd, even impious, to suggest that an individual may decide what
emphasis he will put on various divine (absolute) commands. Yet, this is a
necessary part of applying the word to a situation; and without such
application, the law is a dead letter.
ix. It must not be assumed, therefore, that because God has commanded
something, it must be done immediately or must be given an unlimited
amount of time.
a) In some church courts, e.g., one commonly hears that since God has
sanctified the truth and requires sound doctrine, questions of doctrinal
orthodoxy always must take precedence over all other considerations.
Thus, there are church courts that are so preoccupied with doctrinal
questions (even minutiae) that they do little in the area of missions,
evangelism, prayer, etc. The commandment concerning doctrinal
soundness, however, must not be thought to take precedence over
every other consideration in every situation.
b) Other church courts take the opposite approach: God commands
evangelism, and, thus, we must be up and about the business of soulwinning,
and questions of doctrine must take second place. But to
assume without argument that they must is to take an irresponsible
attitude.
c) The OP and PCA churches differ essentially in their customary
determinations of priorities. The OPC is closer to a) above; the PCA
closer to b), though both bodies are most balanced than the caricatures
in a) and b) would suggest. The main problem inhibiting merger of
these bodies is that neither group is willing to question seriously its
own scheme of priorities or to acknowledge the difficulty and subtlety
of the question involved. Each group tends simply to assume that its
own scale of priorities is right and then to measure the other group in
terms of that scale.
II. Christian Ethics: The Situational Perspective (Christian Teleological or Situational
Ethics).
In the normative perspective, we asked “What is our duty?” Here, the ethical question is,
“How must I change the world in order to accomplish God’s purposes?
A. The Situation and Our Knowledge of Our Duty.
1. Recall what was said earlier about God’s character and acts as ethical revelation.
a. As our ultimate “situation” or environment, God Himself is norm [I.A.].
68
b. Since his word comes through nature and history, there are norms available to
us through the situation [I.B.].
c. Such norms do not go “beyond” Scripture in the sense of compromising
Scriptural sufficiency [I.C.5.].
d. Yet, natural revelation is indispensable for the application of Scripture [esp.
I.C.5.c.iii.]. And without the application, we would have no norm at all.
2. Functions of the situation in making moral decisions.
a. Posing moral questions: We are told to do all to the glory of God. Thus, every
fact poses the question of how we are going to use the things before us to
God’s glory. (Picture Adam’s thinking as he came to know more and more
about the world: “How can I best relate this fact to my calling before God?”)
b. Answering moral questions: Everything we learn about the facts helps us to
answer the questions of 2.a. The fact that fire cooks food shows us one way in
which fire can be employed in the building of God’s kingdom. This is saying
simply that everything we learn about the world helps us better to apply God’s
norms. Cf. the relation of presuppositions to evidences in apologetics. (Frame,
Doctrine of the Knowledge of God)
3. Means-end relationships (teleology).
a. Often, applications of God’s norms will be on the basis of means-end
relationships. If I am to obey God by worshipping on Sunday morning, I must
find transportation to church. Finding transportation, then, is a duty because it
is a means to the end of getting to church.
b. Does the end justify any means?
i. God uses even ungodly means to achieve his purposes. His purposes will
be achieved whatever means we may try to employ (his decretive will).
This fact, however, does not justify the use of such means (his preceptive
will).
ii. Though ungodly means have a certain effectiveness [i], Scripture often
represents them as powerless. Ultimately, they can achieve neither their
own purposes nor the purposes of God (Ephesians. 6, e.g.).
iii. Thus, in one sense, only godly means are capable of achieving God’s
purposes. Ungodly means must be seen as working against them,
contributing to them only in a highly ironic or paradoxical sense. God uses
ungodly means by overruling them, overwhelming them, forcing them
contrary to their intention to glorify him.
iv. Thus, in one sense, the end does justify the means. Any means that is in
the best sense conducive to God’s glory is legitimate. Any means that is
not is illegitimate.
v. However, the situation is so complicated that we should seek to evaluate
on the basis of Scripture not only the ends we seek, but also the means for
achieving them.
vi. In practice, we often justify an action because it is conducive to a good
end. There is nothing wrong with this as long as we are open to the
correction of Scripture concerning both ends and means.
69
vii. A means which is good ‘in itself,” or good “in general,” must be further
evaluated according to the end it aims to accomplish and its efficiency in
achieving that end.
c. Thus, we can see the very limited sense in which a “Christian utilitarianism”
is possible. We seek to calculate the consequences of our actions to determine
whether they are conducive to God’s purposes. But we must do this always in
subjection to God’s written Word.
4. Casuistry.
a. Casuistry is simply the application of law to situations.
b. As such, it is inevitable. If we are to obey the law at all, we must learn to
make judgments about its applications (cf. normative perspective). Scripture
requires that. [I.D.5.c.iv.b) i)].
c. Casuistry assesses the differences in different situations, the motives of
actions, the diversities (priorities, especially) within the law itself.
d. Though casuistry is unavoidable to the Christian, it has been subject to much
abuse. We dare not take on this job without being aware of the dangers of it,
the errors associated with it in the past.
i. Pharisaism: The law is in effect replaced or even contradicted by casuistic
interpretations, “. . . making the word of God of none effect by tradition.”
ii. False applications were often made normative in the church.
iii. Casuistry as rationalization of sin: (“lax” interpretations). In Rabbinical
Judaism and later Roman Catholic casuistry, there was a tendency to
polarities between more “lax” and more “rigorous” schools: Shammai vs.
Hillel, Jansenists vs. Jesuits, etc.
a) Principle that a wrong action can be justified because it is more right
than its opposite.
b) Too easily determining exceptions to general commands.
c) Too easily claiming implicit qualifications to commands.
d) Principle that a normally sinful action can be excused if done for a
good motive.
iv. Casuistry as a burdensome yoke (“rigorous” interpretations):
a) Vast catalogue of restrictions added to God’s word.
b) Leaves little room for freedom of the believer, individual
responsibility.
c) Encourages a nit-picking mentality, interest in minutiae as over against
the “weightier” matters.
d) Questions the perspicuity of revelation by making morality a matter
for experts to decide.
e) Promotes overconfidence in the interpreter’s own ability to interpret
Scripture and situation. Are we really sure that we “understood” the
Viet Nam war?
f) Encourages works-righteousness.
e. Ways to guard against such abuse.
70
i. Firm, practical confidence in the gospel of justification by grace through
faith in the finished work of Christ.
ii. Firm, practical confidence in Scripture as the clear and sufficient word of
God.
iii. Perspective: Awareness of what is more or less important within Scripture
itself, and among its applications (“priorities”).
iv. A mature conscience, resisting rationalization.
v. A recognition that even the largest catalogue of applications will not be
exhaustive. No matter how large (or how accurate!) the catalogue, there
will always be a question of application remaining. (If the catalogue
applies the Scriptures, who applies the catalogue?). Thus, there is always
need for a choice by the individual. And, often, that choice is best helped,
not by a list of rules, but by moral growth in the Spirit.
5. Summary: A biblical understanding of our situation will tell us our duty. If we
understand the ends and means of the created order, we will know what to do.
This is a Christian “situational” or “teleological” ethic. However, it presupposes
and involves all we said earlier about the norm.
B. The Ethical Situation (environment).
Since we must take our situation into account when we make ethical choices, it is
important that we learn to describe that situation in a biblical way.
1. God Himself: God is the original environment from which all else comes, and in
whom we liven and move and have our being. Recall the “Lordship attributes,”
control, authority and presence [Part I: I.C]. It is the fact of God, which must,
above all, be taken account of in our ethical decisions.
a. His Decree.
i. Since God by His decree foreordains everything that comes to pass, all
means/end relationships are part of his all-wise plan. We can trust that the
means he approves will be effective and that the end he announces will
surely come to pass. Hence, the persuasiveness of the “natural law” idea.
God’s commands are consistent with creation. I would not say that the
former are “grounded in” the latter, for the opposite conception is equally
legitimate.
ii. Thus, the situational and normative perspectives are consistent. What God
tells us in His word will surely take place in the world. Obeying the law is
the best way to get along in the world.
iii. Does our environment ever force us into making a sinful choice?
(“Conflict of duties,” “tragic moral choice”.)
a) There are many apparent examples of this: cf.
i) Must we not, in some situations, tell lies in order to preserve life?
In World War II, many fought moral battles over the question of
whether they should answer truly when asked if they were hiding
Jews.
71
ii) Women in concentration camps were sometimes lured into
adulterous relationships on the promise that cooperation would
save the lives of their loved ones.
iii) Biblical examples: cf. Murray 123ff., Kline “The Intrusion”.
b) It appears that in these examples one cannot keep one commandment
without breaking another. This is because the situation has become so
distorted by sin that no perfectly righteous choice is possible.
c) Such an analysis must, however, be rejected:
i) The character of God.
(1) God is not a tempter (James 1:13). Men are tempted when they
are enticed by their own lust (v. 14). If God in His providence
allowed the world to go so far astray that no good choice could
be made, it would be difficult to avoid shifting the blame for
our sinful decisions on to him. In a sense, of course, God has
decreed that fallen man cannot choose the good. But this
presupposes that the environment presents even to fallen man a
righteous alternative (see below).
(2) God does not deny Himself (II Timothy 2:13). If genuine
“tragic choices” existed, God would be, in effect, commanding
and forbidding the same thing (in our example, he would be
commanding and forbidding either truth-telling or preservation
of life).
ii) The character of sin: Sin always presupposes that there is
something right that ought to be done, and that man knows what
that is. Note Romans 1-2, other biblical condemnations of sin. If
there were “tragic choices,” there would, in those cases, be no
clearly right alternative, and, therefore, no way of knowing that
alternative.
iii) The character of the law:
(1) If there are “tragic choices,” then the Lord in effect commands
two contradictory things [1.b.], and the law, then, would also
be contradictory. Remember that where applications are
contradictory, meaning is contradictory.
(2) “The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul” (Psalm
19:7ff.). If there were “tragic choices,” then it would be
necessary and beneficial to break the law in some way (e.g., in
the example of the law requiring truth), and harmful to keep the
law. The suppositions are impossible.
iv) The character of Christ:
(1) If Jesus did face “tragic choices,” i.e., choices in which it is
impossible not to sin, then, it could not be said that Jesus was
“tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin.” If Jesus
faced “tragic choices,” then He was a sinner.
(2) If we face “tragic choices” and Jesus did not, then it can
scarcely be said that Jesus was “tempted in all points like as we
72
are.” (Hebrews 4:15). I.e., if Jesus did not face decisions of this
most difficult type, then he can hardly be said to have
participated in the moral agony of our fallen world.
v) I Corinthians 10:13—A promise particularly given to believers, but
reflecting the general view of moral life summarized above.
d) Why the theory is plausible.
i) It is easy enough, when writing an ethics text, to concoct an
example where all “ways of escape” from sin are ruled out. But are
there cases like that in the real world? Be careful of forming your
picture of the ethical life on the basis of hypothetical examples
taken from ethics textbooks.
ii) Some of the plausibility of this theory comes, however, from the
undeniable fact that moral choice is often very difficult. Often, it is
not easy to find the “way of escape.” In rejecting the concept of
“tragic moral choice,” do not fall to the other extreme of
oversimplifying ethical problems.
iii) Some alleged examples of tragic moral choice are really questions
of priority within the divine law. [Cf. I.D.11.]. It is at least
arguable, e.g., that the command to preserve life overrides the
command to tell the truth in some cases.
iv) Some moral situations are particularly difficult because they
involve a choice between two evils. When trying to save lives on a
battlefield, we may have to choose between allowing one man or
another to die, in order to have time and resources to save others.
This seems like a “tragic choice” in the above sense. Note well,
however: It is a choice between two evils, not a choice between
two wrongs. Either choice we make will bring harm to someone,
and that is, in one sense, evil, even “tragic” in a general sense. But
it cannot be shown that all possible choices in that situation will
displease the Lord.
iv. Foreordination, freedom, responsibility.
a) It has often been thought that if man is to be responsible for his
actions, he must be able to act independently of God’s decree.
i) Recall autexousion (free will) in many church fathers.
ii) Thomas Aquinas: God moves man’s will toward the universal
good; else man would not be able to will anything. However, man
determines himself, by his reason, to will this or that (which may
be a true or only apparent good).
iii) Arminianism.
iv) Secular philosophers: Descartes, Kant, Existentialism, some
British writers such as H. D. Lewis and C.A. Campbell.
(1) Lewis and Campbell deny not only divine foreordination; they
also deny that our choices are determined at all by past choices
or character.
73
(2) Other secular philosophers the same.
b) The central argument: “ought” implies “can”.
i) It is generally assumed in law that a person can be blamed for
something only if he was able to avoid doing it. If, e.g., someone is
judged insane, he may be acquitted of blame, since, presumably, he
“could not avoid” doing what he did.
ii) Scripture, then, is also invoked to support this principle.
c) Comments:
i) It is true that in Scripture moral responsibility presupposes certain
kinds of “ability”.
(1) Doing right or wrong presupposes all those abilities which
distinguish human beings from the animal kingdom. Animals
are not subject to moral praise or blame (except metaphorically
or symbolically, Exodus 19:13, etc.)
(2) Morality presupposes that ethical decisions are our decisions—
decisions which, even if foreordained, are genuine decisions of
the person, based on norms which the person adopts as his own
[cf. III.B.1.d-e.]
(3) Doing right or wrong presupposes knowledge of God’s
standards, Romans 1-2. Those who have greater knowledge are
subject to greater condemnation, Leviticus 5:17ff., Numbers
15:29ff., Luke 12:47f., for, in a sense, they are more “able” to
do right.
(4) Moral choice also presupposes that mankind in Adam was
originally created with such a nature that he could have chosen
obedience. Thus, the human race is responsible for the
depravity which resulted from disobedience (Romans 5).
(5) Scripture also presupposes that man is not determined entirely
by his heredity and created environment. Even those without
wealth or education or moral training know God’s law and are
expected to obey even if their environment militates against it.
(Cf. Westminster Confession of Faith, IX.) A bad environment,
therefore, is no excuse for disobedience.
(6) Moral responsibility presupposes various natural abilities:
physical and mental capacities for carrying out God’s
commands.
(7) Accessibility to God: God can reach us by his grace, so that we
“can” do his will.
ii) Other kinds of ability, however, are not presupposed by the
Scriptural concept of responsibility.
(1) The power of contrary choice since the Fall.
(2) The ability to will contrary to, or independently of, God’s
decree (Acts 2:23, 4:27f.).
74
(3) The power to know exhaustively or control completely the
effects of our actions.
(4) The power to establish our own moral standards (cf. Sartre).
iii) To suppose that any of the abilities under ii) are required for
morality is to adopt a non-biblical set of moral presuppositions.
Thus, the basic question is a question of morality, not merely of
metaphysics or anthropology.
iv) “Free will” in the Arminian sense is actually destructive of
responsibility.
(1) It makes our choices to some extent the product of chance. And
who can be held responsible for choices which are purely
accidental, which just happen?
(2) This problem is even more obvious in those views which make
choice independent of previous choices and character. Moral
choice on such views becomes “internal accident,” a queer
movement of the mind.
(3) It makes our ultimate environment, at some point, impersonal
rather than personal. At that point, we are no longer
responsible, because responsibility is always responsibility to a
person.
(4) The notion of chance (irrationalism) coupled with moral
autonomy (rationalism) amounts to a non-Christian dialectic
that is destructive of all moral (and other) discourse.
v) The Problem of Evil: See Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God;
Doctrine of God.
b. His Authority (cf. I., the Normative Perspective): God’s word is the fact by
which all other facts are to be interpreted and evaluated.
c. His Presence (cf. III., the Existential Perspective): In our thinking about
ethics, we must reckon on the fact that God is not aloof or far away from us,
but deeply involved in our midst both to bless and to curse.
i. Before the Fall: God was Lord and Friend to man; Control, Authority,
Presence.
ii. After the Fall:
a) God appears to judge sin. His hostility toward sin continues even in
the present period. Thus, we make our ethical decisions with the wrath
of God in view (Ephesians 5:6; Colossians 3:6).
b) He gives the redemptive promise—the basis of ethical hope.
iii. With the patriarchs and Israel: covenant solidarity. “I will be with you,”
Exodus 3:12; Cf. Deuteronomy 7:6ff., etc. Because we are his, because he
has drawn us to himself, therefore we are to be holy, set apart for him.
iv. Incarnation to Pentecost:
a) The kingdom has come—the righteousness of God on earth.
b) We are in the kingdom, in Christ, in the “age to come.” We are
children of light. Thus, we are able to prevail in the moral battle.
75
c) In Christ, we have the definitive example of righteousness.
d) Yet, we are also living in “this age”. The old and new ages overlap,
and we exist simultaneously in both. Christ has won the decisive
victory (“already,”) but sin continues to exercise power until the
parousia (“not yet”). Thus, all ethical life involves tension. We are
holy in Christ, yet disobedient servants.
v. The Parousia and Consummation: Note the various ways in which this
hope is related to ethics as a purifying doctrine:
a) Since this age is to end and the things of this world are to be dissolved,
the Christian ought to have a set of priorities radically different from
those of the world, II Peter 3:11; cf. I Corinthians 7:26, 29.
b) Since we eagerly await that day (II Peter 3:12; I John 3:3), we will
anticipate it even now by purifying ourselves as he is pure. Thus even
now, we are part of the new age, not of the old (Galatians 1:4; Romans
12:2)
c) Since the Resurrection of Christ has decisively established the new
age, we are confident that our labors for his kingdom will not be in
vain, but will inevitably prevail, I Corinthians 15:58.
d) We look to the parousia as our deliverance from tribulation, and thus
as a source of hope in tribulation, Luke 21:28, parallels.
e) Knowing that Christ is coming, but not knowing the day and hour, we
must always be ready to meet him, Matthew 24:44; I Thessalonians
5:1-10; I Peter 1:7; II Peter 3:14.
f) Rewards also serve as motivation, Romans 14:10; II Corinthians 5:10;
I Corinthians 3:8ff., 9:17f., 25; Colossians 3:23-25; Ephesians 6:7f.,
II Timothy 4:8; I Peter 5:4; James 1:12; Psalm 19:11; Matthew 5:12,
46, 6:1ff., 10:41f., parallels; II John 8; Revelation 11:18.
i) This teaching is not works righteousness or salvation by merit.
(1) We do not deserve the reward. Even at our best, we do no more
than our duty, Luke 17:7-10.
(2) The reward is out of all proportion to the service rendered,
Matthew 19:29, 20:1-16, 24:45-47, 25:21ff.; Luke 7:48, 12:37.
(3) Essentially, the reward is the kingdom itself (Matthew 5:3, 10,
25:34) which is given by grace to the elect, Matthew 20:33,
25:34; Luke 12:31f. Cf. the Old Testament emphasis on the
Lord himself as the inheritance of his people. Psalm 16:5,
73:24-26; Lamentations 3:24. Cf. Philippians 1:7-11.
ii) Paradoxically, however, there are also degrees of reward, and these
have some positive correlation to our faithfulness [passages under
f)].
(1) Remember that our faithfulness is itself a gift, a product of
God’s grace.
76
(2) The passages underscore the principle that although we are
saved by grace through faith alone, the faith that saves is never
alone, never without obedience.
(3) Since, then, there is a positive correlation between salvation
and obedience, it is not surprising that there should also be a
correlation between the degree of obedience and the fullness of
salvation blessing.
(4) Since there is no sorrow or pain in heaven, we must assume
that even though there are degrees of blessing, everyone will be
perfectly happy with the blessing he has. Everyone receives
enough to fill him to capacity. No one will be jealous.
iii) Note the correlation between our own ultimate self-interest and the
fulfillment of God’s purposes. [Cf. below on the goal.] There is no
antagonism between these in Christian ethics.
vi. Notice, then, how our ethical decisions must take account of past, present,
and future events.
2. The Angels.
In a surprising number of passages, Scripture teaches us to take our angelic
“environment” into account when making ethical decisions.
a. The doctrine of angels rebukes the smallness of our cosmology.
i. The modern cosmology leaves little room for angels.
a) In one sense, it is relatively easy for modern man to deal with God: He
makes God so utterly transcendent that his existence is irrelevant to the
world.
b) Angels, however, cannot easily be eliminated by the transcendence
route.
ii. Though the modern cosmology is often said to be much broader than the
biblical one, much larger, it is actually smaller in its view of rational
beings. The modern view sees man as the only rational being on earth and
the vast reaches of space (save some enclaves on other planets) as devoid
of intelligent life. In Scripture, however, the universe is filled with great
multitudes—legions—of angels. Thus:
iii. Scripture teaches that the visible world is only a small part of God’s
kingdom, only a small part of the intelligent life of the universe. II Kings
6:17 teaches us that we need a larger perspective than the visible word
affords.
a) Our spiritual struggles are part of a much larger warfare.
b) The warfare is in one sense far bigger and more complicated than we
would ever suppose apart from revelation.
iv. The doctrine of angels also emphasizes the personal character of God’s
providence. Not only is the world governed by a divine person, but that
divine person typically works, not through impersonal “law structures,”
but through personal agents. This is important, for impersonal
77
determinism militates against ethical responsibility. God does not press
buttons—not often at least; rather, he sends messengers.
b. The doctrine of angels shows us something of the dimensions of our ethical
warfare.
i. Angels participate in the kingdom warfare.
a) Bad angels—Satan and his hosts—tempters, accusers, etc.
b) Good angels—ministering spirits for us (Hebrews 1:14).
c) The fight one another, as well as against and for us (Daniel 10:13, 21;
Jude 9; Revelation 12:7).
d) Thus, Scripture urges us not to underestimate the difficulty of the
struggle, as if we could succeed with human resources alone,
Ephesians 6. Not only are men involved, but also beings which are
terribly strong, intelligent, numerous, and, to us, exceedingly
mysterious.
e) On the other hand, we ought not to overestimate the difficulty either;
for there are angels fighting on our side, II Kings 6:15-17.
f) The main point: Do not base your hopes or fears merely upon the
empirical situation. The really decisive issues in life are religious and
ethical, even if “experience” suggests otherwise; for it is our religious
and ethical equipment alone that will prevail over the hosts of evil.
Use the armor of God!
ii. Angels are witnesses to human salvation. Luke 12:8f., 15:10; I Corinthians
4:9; Ephesians 3:10; I Timothy 3:16; I Peter 1:12; Revelation 14:10.
a) Although in one sense angels participate in the redemptive drama,
there is another sense in which they are spectators rather than
participants. Redemption does not extend to them. Unfallen angels
need no redemption, and fallen angels receive none (cf. Hebrews
2:16).
b) Thus, the angels are somewhat bewildered by the process of
redemption. They are amazed at what God has done for humanity.
c) Remarkably enough, they learn the redemptive wisdom of God
through the church, Ephesians 3:10! It is our privilege to teach angels
by our words and life! (Consider this as an ethical motivation.)
d) Beyond this, the angels also serve as “witnesses” in a more official
sense (Luke 12:8f., etc.).
iii. The doctrine of angels is a measure of the greatness of our salvation in
Christ; for that salvation lifts us above the angels.
a) According to Hebrews 2:9, Jesus was made a little (or “for a little
while;” the temporal expression brachu is used) lower than the angels
for the suffering of death. He is then again exalted above them.
b) The passage implies that Jesus’ brethren share that exaltation with
him. Thus, Psalm 8 is fulfilled. Although we do not yet see everything
subject to man, we see this dominion in Jesus (2:8).
c) Thus, the angels minister to us, not vice versa, Hebrews 1:14.
78
d) The world to come is not theirs, but ours, 2:5ff. (Cf. Paul’s odd
statement that we shall judge angels, I Corinthians 6:3.)
e) Thus, angel worship is a great delusion from which Christ has set us
free, Colossians 2:18f., Revelation 19:10, 22:8f.
f) Because of Christ, Satan is a defeated foe. We may resist him, and he
will flee, I Peter 5:8f.; James 4:7.
g) Salvation is for man alone, God’s image, not for angels (Hebrews
2:16) [cf. ii., above].
3. The Human Environment (Social).
God expects us to take our fellow human beings into account when we make moral
decisions. We shall say much more about the foundations of social ethics in
connection with the ethics of government (Fifth Commandment) and of sex
(Seventh). At this point, we shall restrict ourselves to some very general
observations.
a. The Cultural Mandate: A Corporate Task (Genesis 1:28ff.).
i. “Subduing” and “replenishing” the earth are not tasks that Adam could
even conceivably have done alone [cf. I.D.11.e.iv.].
ii. Since God made man male and female, and since reproduction is part of
the cultural task itself, God intended from the beginning that this work be
carried out primarily as a corporate task, a task of mankind.
iii. Thus, the individual is not responsible to replenish and subdue the earth;
rather, his responsibility is to make the best contribution to this task of
which he is capable.
iv. Thus, from the very beginning, God intended for us to make our individual
decisions by taking other people into account, and specifically by seeking
how we can best help our fellow human beings in their divinely ordained
task.
b. The Fall: A Corporate Failure.
i. Eve was intended as a helper for Adam in every respect including the
ethical-religious. Both were to encourage one another in keeping the
commands of God.
ii. In the Fall, Eve became temptress instead of helper, taking the role of
Satan.
iii. Similarly, Adam forsook his headship and capitulated to the sinful request
of his wife.
iv. Thus, the Fall involved not only individual sins on the part of Adam and
Eve, but simultaneously a breakdown of their relationship, of their Godordained
family structure.
v. Corroborating these observations: The Fall brings about sexual shame
between the man and woman, Genesis 3:7, 10f., 21, cf. 2:25. Also, note
Adam’s blaming his wife for his sin, 3:12, further breakdown of family
harmony, 3:16, pain and toil in the cultural task, 3:16-19 [cf. a.].
vi. Note also the New Testament emphasis on Adam as corporate head of the
human race, Romans 5; I Corinthians 15.
79
vii. Thus, the question “What would have happened if Eve had sinned but
Adam remained obedient?” is an unreal question, demanding, not a minor,
but a major change in the biblical story. Adam and Eve were united in
their cultural task and united also in sin. It was the race that fell in Genesis
3.
c. Corporate Effects of the Fall.
i. Working out of the curse [above, b.v.]
ii. Development of “civilization” among sinful men.
a) The sons of Cain, Genesis 4:17-24, developing social, cultural,
governmental institutions in opposition to God.
b) Genesis 6:1-5: Royal polygamy? Angel marriages? Mixed marriages?
In any case, a breakdown in the divinely ordained social structure.
c) Genesis 11:1ff.: Babel. Unification of the human race in disobedience
to God.
d) Compounding of evil through cultural developments; Sodom and
Gomorrah, Canaan, etc. Sinful practices reinforced by unified cultural
tradition, rationalized, accepted easily by individuals.
e) Principles of evil incarnate in governmental, ecclesiastical forms:
Daniel, Revelation.
d. The Corporate Character of Redemption.
i. The first redemptive promise, like the cultural mandate, concerns land and
seed (Genesis 3:16-19): In toil, we will live off the land until the seed of
promise defeats the enemy. Like the cultural mandate, these promises
concern humanity as a body. The toil over the land is a common task, and
the seed presupposes reproduction and family.
ii. God redeems, not merely individuals, but “a people”.
a) Sethites / Cainites, Noah’s family, Shem / Ham and Japheth, Peleg /
Joktan (Genesis 10:25?), Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Christ.
b) The promise “to you and to your children”—family units brought into
the kingdom. Circumcision and baptism.
iii. Redeeming a people implies that the people is united by common
structures. Thus, redemption involves the development of a new
civilization, new social institutions.
a) Prophetic, priestly, kingly institutions.
b) Family, church, state.
c) New Covenant: Christ as king, apostles, prophets, pastor-teachers,
elders, deacons, each believer using his gifts to serve the body.
d) The consummation: not only new heavens and new earth, but New
Jerusalem as well—new city, new social order.
e. Corporate Life “Between the Times”.
i. Specific situations do develop, different in some respects from those noted
in Scripture, to which the law must be applied.
ii. Thus in ethics, we must discern carefully the process of history.
80
f. Corporate Life and Moral Decisions (Summary).
i. God intended for us to help one another in our common task, not to try to
do everything alone. Thus, we are to seek help and guidance from those
equipped to give it.
ii. Because of sin, however, other people are not only helpers, but tempters as
well. Thus, the need of vigilance, testing, proving as well as trusting.
iii. Such temptation, sinful influence, is compounded by the development of
unregenerate social institutions.
iv. Because of redemption, we may expect from others, not only help coming
out of “natural” gifts, but specifically, the blessing of the Spirit. In other
words, we meet Christ in his brethren. The gifts of the Spirit are not
proportional to intelligence, education, wealth.
v. The blessing of the Spirit is magnified in the development of regenerate
institutions.
vi. We must not only expect help from one another, but must above all seek
to help one another—the love-command. In all our decisions, we must
consider the needs of others above our own.
vii. The great events of our time must be addressed by the Word. This
involves Christian analysis of social and political issues. Such social
critique is itself a corporate task. Many ministers do not have the training
to carry out such analysis knowledgeably. The ministry needs help from
many Christians trained in many fields.
4. The Human Environment (Individual).
a. Christian ethics is throughout both individual and social. In every decision
(not only decisions about “social issues”), we are called to take others into
account. On the other hand, every decision (even on “social issues) is a
decision which we make as individuals. We must always live “with others,”
but also with ourselves.
b. Our character.
i. Created in God’s image, precious to God.
ii. Depraved by the fall, unable of ourselves to do anything good.
iii. New creatures in Christ, free from sin’s dominion, filled with gifts of the
Spirit.
iv. Sin still lingers until the consummation.
v. Individual differences in character from other Christians due to differences
in level of sanctification, specific temptations, etc.
vi. For more on this, see existential perspective, III.
c. Our history.
i. Besides being members of groups and institutions, we are each unique—
different in some way from every other human being.
ii. This uniqueness begins in the creative mind of God and exists from
conception.
iii. Each of us has unique heredity, environment, abilities, strengths,
weaknesses.
81
iv. None of us enters the kingdom of God in precisely the same way. Though
faith and repentance are necessary in all cases, these occur in many
different forms and in many different situations.
v. Each of us has a set of experiences different in some way from those of
everyone else.
vi. Each of us has, in some degree, a unique role in the kingdom of God—a
unique calling, unique gifts and opportunities.
vii. Each of us has, in some sense, a unique spiritual battle. True, the
temptations we face are “common to man” (I Corinthians 10:13); but they
do not take identical form in every individual case. All of us are tempted
to steal, but in different ways: Some are tempted to steal from individuals,
others “only” from corporations or government, others from the honor due
to God.
viii.Each of us has, in some measure, unique moral responsibilities stemming
from his particular calling. (The pastor of Covenant PCA, Winter Park, is
obligated to preach there regularly; I am not.) These arise out of
applications of the Word to our unique situations.
d. Moral decisions, then, must take into account both the likenesses and the
differences between ourselves and other persons (particularly other
Christians).
i. We must each apply the word to his unique situation. Though we can and
must seek help from others in this, no one else can do it for us. Even in
applying the advice of others, an individual judgment must be made.
ii. We must each seek to overcome his unique temptations through the means
of grace, realizing that our temptations are not, at the most basic level,
different from those all men experience (I Corinthians 10:13) or,
specifically, different from those which Christ experienced as a man
(Hebrews 4:15).
5. The Natural Environment.
a. Man as part of nature.
i. Man is a creature, and in that respect is closer to nature than he is to God.
ii. Man is made of the dust, Genesis 2:7.
iii. He is dependent upon the ground for his continued life, Genesis 1:29,
2:8ff., 3:17ff., etc.
iv. Thus, many obvious similarities and analogies between human and animal
life.
b. Man as distinct from nature.
i. A special creation, not a product of evolution, Genesis 2:7, 21ff.
ii. Special engagement of the divine counsel, Genesis 1:26.
iii. Image of God, Genesis 1:26ff.
iv. Vassal lordship over the earth, Genesis 1:26ff., 2:19f.
c. The curse on the ground, Genesis 3:17-19.
i. The earth resists man’s dominion.
82
ii. It is a source of distress (“toil”), weariness.
iii. Though all things are good, even after the fall (I Timothy 4:4; cf. Genesis
1:31, I Corinthians 10:26), man’s lust finds in things a source of
temptation, as with the fruit in the fall narrative itself.
iv. Events in the natural world serve as means of divine judgment, chastening,
deliverance.
a) The plagues of Egypt.
b) Job’s sufferings.
c) The Flood, etc.
d. Nature and redemption
i. Natural (and supernatural) signs, Matthew 2:2, 24:29ff.
ii. Nature and redemptive events (above, d.iv.).
iii. Creation waiting anxiously for the consummation, Romans 8:19-23.
iv. The course of nature and history is “on our side”. Things and events are
occasions for growth and victory, not only means of temptation (Romans
8:28).
v. Consummation: The new heavens and new earth, II Peter 3:13; Revelation
21:1.
e. Nature and moral decisions.
i. From the beginning, man was expected to apply God’s word to his natural
environment.
a) Cultural mandate: How do we use each thing to God’s glory and to
fulfill our task?
b) Naming of animals.
c) Abstaining from the forbidden fruit.
d) “Keeping” and “cultivating” the garden, Genesis 2:15. I.e., Adam’s
task is not merely t dominate, but also to maintain and improve his
natural environment. Conservation is not, of course, opposite to
subduing and replenishing, but necessary to them.
ii. Since the fall, we must reckon with nature as an occasion for suffering,
frustration, sin.
iii. Yet even now, we live by the ground (Genesis 3:17ff.) and, thus, must
continue to cultivate and subdue it.
iv. Anticipation of physical resurrection in the new creation-purifying
doctrine.
C. The Goal of Christian Ethics.
Since Christian ethics is, from the situational perspective, a matter of determining the
best godly means of achieving God’s purposes, it is important for us to try to define
in general what those purposes are. What goal or goals ought we to be seeking in
moral decisions?
1. The Doctrine of the Two-fold End.
a. Some church fathers, perhaps under Gnostic influence or due to misreading of
Scripture, denigrated the physical world, favoring an ascetic withdrawal from
83
the world as the highest form of Christian morality (Tatian, Clement of
Alexandria, Tertullian, Jerome).
b. Augustine.
i. More positive, world-affirming view of the state, marriage, property.
These are not evil in themselves.
ii. Earthly life, however, is but a pilgrimage to the hereafter. The supreme
goal of human life is our union with God in the vision of God in heaven.
iii. Earthly pursuits, therefore, though not sinful in themselves, can distract us
from our heavenly goal.
a) Private property is legitimate; the rich and poor alike can be saved by
God’s grace. But possessions are a hindrance to the soul, and, thus,
poverty is preferable. If we cannot abstain from possessions, let us at
least seek to avoid the love of possessions.
b) Marriage is a sacrament and therefore good, but sex always involves
desire (in this age), and desire is evil. Therefore, celibacy is higher
than marriage.
c) The state promotes justice and happiness in the world. Yet in this
fallen world, it is based on self-love, contempt of God. Thus, it must
be subordinate to the church.
d) Even good works are always tinged by sin.
iv. Asceticism, therefore, is valuable, not because the flesh is evil or because
we ought to seek what is unpleasant for its own sake, but rather because
such practices free us from earthly preoccupation so that we may better
serve God.
v. Comments:
a) Augustine realizes better than his predecessors that God’s creation is
good.
b) His motive for asceticism is not that things are bad in themselves, but
that our sinful hearts become preoccupied with them so as to draw us
away from the service of God. Augustine’s concern, then, is ethical,
not metaphysical. The question he asks about the use of things is
altogether biblical.
c) Augustine, however, tends to go beyond the biblical data in his moral
generalizations. Is it true that all desire is evil? That marriage always
or generally presents more spiritual dangers than celibacy? That the
state is necessarily less godly than the church?
d) In these overgeneralizations, Augustine almost unconsciously returns
to hierarchical patterns of thought: the soul vs. the body, the church vs.
the state, etc.
e) Augustine’s otherworldliness, his preference for monasticism, run
counter to the biblical emphasis upon involvement in the affairs and
needs of the creation.
c. Thomas Aquinas.
84
i. Man’s highest good: Contemplation and love of God, bringing likeness to
God and realization of the true self.
ii. In its highest form, the beatific vision, this is possible only in the life to
come.
iii. Through reason, leading us to habits of virtue, we can attain an incomplete
happiness in this life.
iv. For eternal blessedness, however, a supernatural principle of grace must
be infused into man by God—the supernatural virtues of faith, hope, love.
v. Even in this life, the contemplative life is superior to the practical life.
a) It is based on the love of God, while the practical life is based on the
love of man.
b) The practical life is therefore less meritorious.
c) The contemplative life is more free from the senses and bodily organs.
vi. Consilia Evangelica (evangelical counsels).
a) The safest, quickest way to blessedness is the monastic life, the life of
poverty, chastity, obedience.
b) These cannot be commanded, for they are not for everybody. Yet for
those capable of it, this is the way to the highest perfection.
vii. Comments:
a) Like Augustine, Aquinas presents us with an essentially otherworldly
ethic, based on biblical warnings about the temptations of earthly life
and the kingdom of God as the highest good.
b) Aquinas is subject to the same criticisms as Augustine in these matters.
c) Aquinas compounds the problems which Augustine had.
i) With a lower view of the effects of sin. He sees man without grace
as capable of goodness at a certain level, but needing grace to
achieve the highest goal.
ii) By dividing Christians into various groups who have essentially
different obligations. One group has a “higher” morality than the
other, even though the other group is not guilty of sin on that
account. There is no biblical support for this notion.
d. Lessons.
i. It is important to maintain that all men have the same “chief end”. Much
mischief has been done.
a) By allowing the legitimacy of non-Christian ends as having natural but
not supernatural validity.
b) By claiming that different groups of Christians may properly seek
different ethical goals.
ii. Formulation of the goal must be based upon Scripture, not on plausible
generalizations about the physical and spiritual, the civil and
ecclesiastical, the married vs. the celibate life, etc.
2. The Overall Goal: Biblical Formulations
85
Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question #1: “What is the chief end of man?
Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.”
a. Glory of God.
i. Man’s purpose from the beginning is determined by God, Genesis 1:26ff.
Man is created, preserved and redeemed fro the sake of God’s purposes
and no other.
ii. Man’s obligation to God is the central feature of biblical law (cf.
normative perspective).
iii. I Corinthians 10:31; Romans 14:23; Colossians 3:17ff., 23: All that we do
must be done as unto the Lord. Our obligation to seek his glory pervades
every aspect of life, every moral choice. Matt. 6:33.
b. Human Enjoyment of God (cf. “eternal life” as the goal Westminster
Confession of Faith XVI:2).
i. Scripture data:
a) Law as delight of the redeemed heart, Psalm 1, 119:97; Romans 7:22.
b) Law as gift of grace, Psalm 119:29.
c) Law as way of life, Leviticus 18:5; Deuteronomy 5:33, 8:3, 11:13-15,
28:1-4, 30:11-20. Obedience is the road to covenant blessing.
d) Law given for our good, Deuteronomy 10:12f; cf. 4:40, 12:28.
e) Rewards as motivation for obedience: [cf. above, II.B.1.c.v.f)]
ii. An “anthropocentric” formulation? Yes, in a way. But remember that it is
God who is to be enjoyed, and indeed God in contrast with the lusts of our
own hearts.
iii. Consistency with the first formulation: God is glorified by the realization
of redeemed human life. He does not demand the annihilation of man, but
rather obedience to him brings the highest happiness. There is no need to
draw sharp opposition between “happiness” and “duty” as in much non-
Christian philosophy.
iv. Scripture does condemn selfishness and preoccupation with one’s own
comfort and pleasure, demanding self-sacrifice and even the endurance of
hardship and persecution. But this is presented as the road to the most
enduring forms of happiness: Matthew 5:24-34, 10:16-42, etc.
a) The passages which most graphically describe the rigors, the
difficulties of the Christian life, characteristically also emphasizes its
rewards.
b) In contrast, the pleasures of sin are characterized as fleeting and vain.
Even the pursuit of the good things of this earth is vain outside the
context of God’s overall purpose (Ecclesiastes).
c. The Kingdom of God as Man’s Summum Bonum (Van Til).
i. Biblical emphases
a) Qualifications for entering the kingdom are ethical, but conferred by
grace.
b) Seeking the kingdom involves seeking God’s righteousness, therefore,
at all levels. Cf. Matthew 6:10.
86
c) Thus, “seeking the kingdom” is that supreme purpose which takes
precedence over all others, Matthew 6:33. Cf. Matthew 25:34.
ii. Relation to other formulations:
a) Combines theocentric, anthropocentric emphases. Matthew 6:33
teaches that as we seek to glorify God, we will find our own
happiness.
b) Brings out the key factor of historical development: The goal of ethics
is the implementation of a particular historical program, not merely of
general norms.
c) This specific program shows concretely how the glory of God is
related to our happiness.
iii. Summary: The Goal of ethics is the fulfillment of the total covenant
relationship between God and man. We seek to advance the purposes of
that covenant, that kingdom program.
3. More Specific Goals.
a. Every commandment, indeed every application of a commandment, presents
us with a goal to be fulfilled, an end to be attained (overlap of situational and
normative perspectives). The question of priorities among these goals is the
same as the question of “priorities among divine commands” [above, I.D.11.].
b. Cultural Mandate and Great Commission.
We shall deal with only one specific priority question here, the relation
between these two basic aspects of God’s kingdom program. There is much to
be said here, and I have much work yet to do on the question. However, I
offer the following theses as fuel for discussion. The general point: The Great
Commission is an application of the cultural mandate to the post-fall situation,
and within that situation, has “priority” in some, but not all, senses.
i. The redemptive promise takes the form of the Cultural Mandate.
a) The Cultural Mandate (Genesis 1:28ff.) has two basic elements, the
subduing and the replenishing of the earth, corresponding to the
creation ordinances of labor and marriage. (The consecration of these
activities to God is reflected in the Sabbath ordinance.)
b) The curse again brings these two elements into view. Childbearing
(3:16) and labor (3:17ff.) are the aspects of human life singled out for
special mention.
c) The Protevangelium (3:15ff.) also mentions these functions
specifically. They are not only cursed, but are instruments of
redemption.
i) Though childbearing will be painful, it will, in time, yield a
redeemer.
ii) Though labor will be toilsome, nevertheless, it will sustain
physical life so that the line of the promised seed will be preserved.
d) The post-Adamic covenants promise land and seed.
i) Noah: His family is to be saved, and the land will be preserved
from further destruction by flood. His sons will live and be subject
87
to curses and blessings. Note especially the renewal of the Cultural
Mandate, Genesis 9:7.
ii) Abraham: The seed of the promise and the land of Canaan.
iii) Moses: The Abrahamic promise renewed.
iv) David: Seed and territorial dominion combined in the concept of
kingship and the promise of a continuing Davidic throne.
v) Christ: Rules (Matthew 28:18, etc.), fills (Ephesians 1:23, 4:10) all
things. Rule and filling by Christ are present realities, but they also
have an aspect yet to be fulfilled, I Corinthians 15:24ff.,
Philippians 3:21.
e) Redemption, therefore, is a particular kind of “subduing” and
“replenishing”.
i) It is the subduing of sin and of the enemies of God, and of the
curse which these have brought upon the earth.
ii) It is the filling of all things with the redemptive presence of God in
Christ, through the Spirit. More specifically, it is the creation of a
new race of people (I Peter 2:9) with their children (Acts 2:39)
who are to carry the knowledge of God throughout the earth
(Matthew 28:19f.). Thus “the earth shall be full of the knowledge
of the Lord as the waters cover the sea,” (Isaiah 11:9).
ii. After the fall, the goal of ethics is always presented in specifically
redemptive terms.
a) “To him (Jesus), the kingdom exists there, where not merely God is
supreme, for that is true at all times and under all circumstances, but
where God supernaturally carries through his supremacy against all
opposing powers and brings man to the willing recognition of the
same.” Vos, The Kingdom and the Church, p. 50.
i) Note: The kingdom is not mere rule, but redemptive rule; not mere
filling of the earth, but filling the earth with faithful kingdom
subjects.
ii) Scriptural basis: The kingdom as the righteousness of God on earth
[above, 2.c.].
b) I Corinthians 9, 10.
i) Paul, here, speaks of the goals of his ministry, specifically the
reasons why he does not use his “rights”: 9:16-27, 10:33.
(1) To make the gospel known without charge, 9:18.
(2) To save men, verses 19-22, 10:33.
(3) For his own share of Gospel benefit, 23-27.
(4) Note that all of these are specifically redemptive goals.
ii) Paul urges us to have the same goals: 9:24, 10:31-11:1.
(1) 10:31 presents us with a purpose which covers all of our
activities.
(2) That purpose presupposes a concern for the redemption of
others, verses 32-33. Doing things to the glory of God implies
88
that we will constantly be thinking about the redemptive needs
of other people.
(3) Imitating Paul and Christ (11:1) involves imitation of
redemptive love [cf. other references to imitatio Christi,
I.A.3.d.]
iii) Philippians 3:4-17.
(1) Here again, Paul describes the goal of his life in broad terms.
Note the “all things,” v. 7f., the “one thing,” 13, “the goal,” 14.
(2) Here again, he presents his goal as an example to us, 15-17.
(3) Here, the emphasis is upon Paul’s own participation in Christ’s
redemptive blessing, the knowledge of Christ gained through
redemption, specifically in contrast with “confidence in the
flesh” (3f.).
iv) Matthew 6:33.
(1) In context, the kingdom of God is presented as our ultimate
priority as over against lesser priorities (seeking food, drink,
clothing).
(2) The ultimate priority is characterized not only as the kingdom,
but as righteousness (cf. 5:6). In the post-fall context, this is the
righteousness of God in contrast with human sin. It is the
divine program of redemption and judgment.
(3) It is, then, this program which we must regard as our prime
concern, even over against the (in itself good) concern for
physical necessities.
v) Conclusion: Everything we do must be done in advance, not only
God’s purposes in general, but specifically the purposes connected
with his post-fall program, the purpose of redemption.
iii. To say that the goal of ethics is specifically redemptive is, in one sense, to
narrow the goal, and, in another sense, not.
a) We are no longer concerned to subdue and replenish the earth apart
from the redemptive significance of those acts. In that sense, our goal
is “narrower” than it was before the fall.
b) On the other hand, the redemptive mandate is every bit as
comprehensive as the cultural mandate.
i) The redemptive program culminates in a New Heaven and New
Earth—if anything, a more comprehensive and radical change than
would have resulted from Adam’s obedience to the original
mandate.
ii) Our redemptive responsibility involves all our decisions, all
aspects of life.
iii) The Christian bricklayer, e.g., is responsible not only to bring out
the potential from the earth to God’s glory, but in doing so to
contribute to the progress of the gospel (and this is done in many
ways).
89
iv. The Great Commission is a statement of the redemptive goal.
a) Note that it is not merely a command to preach the way of forgiveness
in abstraction. It commands us to “make disciples” and to teach “to
observe all that I commanded you.” Note the comprehensiveness here.
b) The Great Commission, then, calls us to preach the gospel, but
including all the implications of the gospel for all areas of life.
c) Discipling and teaching are not only by word, but also by example. Cf.
the notion of witness, Acts 1:8.
d) Thus, the Great Commission calls us to redemptive witness in all
aspects of life.
v. Relations between Cultural Mandate and Great Commission.
a) Both call for creative involvement in God’s purposes in every decision
of life.
b) Both call for godly subduing and filling of the earth.
c) Both call for comprehensive change in the world-system.
d) The Cultural Mandate is prior in that it came first in history and
established the general structure of man’s responsibility. The Great
Commission is merely a particular application of it to a sinful age.
e) The Great Commission sets forth the specific concerns which must
motivate our subduing and filling today. In that sense, it has priority.
i) Thus, Paul gives up his cultural rights and responsibilities (eating,
drinking, marriage) to carry out his redemptive calling, I
Corinthians 9.
ii) Each of us must imitate Paul insofar as our gifts and callings
require.
iii) This does not mean that everyone must be a preacher. Those better
equipped to do other things also carry on redemptive witness as
they demonstrate the difference made by the Gospel in their work.
(1) Not only making money for missions, etc.
(2) Ethical responsibility on the job.
(3) Seeking to develop new structures by which the love and
righteousness of Christ can be made manifest through their
work.
(4) Seeking to apply the teaching of Christ in its full scope.
III. Christian Ethics: The Existential Perspective (Christian Existential or Personalist
Ethics)
The normative perspective asks, “What is my duty?” The situational asks, “How may I
change the world in order to bring about those goals pleasing to God?” The existential
perspective puts it this way: “How must I be changed, that I may please God? Or
corporately, “How must we be changed, etc.?”
A. Goodness and the Being of God.
1. [Cf. I.A.] God’s moral attributes and his person are one. His goodness is
inseparable from his being. Without his goodness, God would not be God. His
good acts, therefore, are expressions of what he truly is.
90
2. God’s moral attributes, not only his power and authority, render him “worthy” of
all praise and obedience. The goodness of his acts, further, motivates us to obey.
B. Goodness and the Being of Man.
God intends that man as God’s image should reflect in a creaturely way this union of
goodness and being, so that doing good comes “naturally”—i.e. as a normal
expression of his nature. As an aspect of the divine image, this natural goodness
renders man an object of worth, deserving of respect above all creatures.
1. Creation.
a. As image of God, man was originally made with a positively good
character—not, as on the Roman Catholic construction, in need of special
grace.
b. He was made free [cf. II.B.1.a.iv.] in various senses, particularly in the sense
that, although good, he was in some paradoxical way capable of sinning.
c. He was responsible to obey God’s commands.
d. As free and responsible, he made his own decisions, in a sense. Though
subject to God’s authority, he was responsible to adopt God’s norms as his
own. Unlike all other creatures, man had the capacity to decide whether to
obey or not.
e. Thus, though God’s norms were imposed upon him from above, in one sense,
they were also imposed by man upon himself. Man acts upon those principles
which he makes his own. (Note relative truth in existentialism.)
f. As vassal king, man also has the responsibility of applying God’s norms to the
lower creation. Everything else in creation is subject to man and specifically
subject to man as a means of fulfilling the cultural task. Thus in a sense, man
becomes a lawgiver to the lower creation. Man’s authority reflects that of God
of which it is image.
g. Like God, also, man is a unity. The distinction between body and soul creates
no ethical conflict in man (as in Roman Catholic theology), nor does it imply
that man is torn between an earthly and a heavenly end [II.C.1.]. Nor is there
any tension in man created by the distinctions between will and intellect,
emotions and reason, etc.
h. These ethical attributes of man (goodness, freedom, responsibility, authority,
unity), together with all the aspects of the image of God, make man, like God,
a person of worth, deserving respect. Christian ethics is personalist in that it
values people above all other created things. Cf. Genesis 9:6; I Corinthians
11:7; James 3:9.
2. Fall.
a. Man is depraved; in himself, he cannot please God (Romans 8:8; cf. 7:18).
b. There is controversy in the church as to whether man lost the image of God in
the fall or whether that image is merely “defaced”. The latter view, I think, is
the Scriptural one. In any case, it is clear that man’s original creation in God’s
image confers upon man a continuing dignity and importance, despite his sin
[1.h., above].
91
c. After the fall, man is no longer free by nature to choose the good. Yet, he is
free in other senses [II.B.1.a.iv.].
d. After the fall, man is still responsible.
e. Similarly, man maintains a kind of moral authority subordinate to that of God.
He still must “decide for himself” [above, 1.d.]; He still establishes
subordinate norms [1.f.]. Although he will abuse this responsibility, the
responsibility remains.
f. After the fall, man remains a unity. His sin is not the result of inevitable
conflict among the parts of his being; rather it is the result of willful choice. It
does sometimes happen that will and intellect, or intellect and emotion,
“conflict” in some sense; but such conflict simply means that fallen man
wants to do what he knows is wrong. All “aspects” of man are equally
affected by sin.
g. Though fallen, man is responsible to be what he was before the fall—obedient
from the heart, obedient by nature. Nothing less will please God. Hence the
depth of the hopelessness of fallen man even trying to please God apart from
grace.
3. Redemption.
a. The atonement of Christ, applied to our hearts by the continuing work of the
Spirit, renews us in the image of Christ (Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:10).
There is controversy over the relation between this “image” and the image in
which we were originally created. However, it is an image of God, and thus
includes all the moral excellencies with which man was originally created.
b. Sin remains in the believer, not to be wholly eradicated until the return of
Christ; but the dominion of sin is gone forever (Romans 6:1-14).
c. The process of sanctification (cf. courses on ordo salutis and means of grace),
Murray, “The Dynamic,” Principles, IX.
i. It involves both dependence upon God and substantial effort on our part.
Sanctification is a spiritual battle. It takes vigilance, discipline, effort
(contra quietism, perfectionism, Keswick, some Lutheran representations).
ii. It involves conscious obedience to God’s commands [cf. I., normative
perspective] as well as spontaneous action in the Spirit.
a) Recall earlier discussion of the Lutheran Formula of Concord [I.D.3.]
which finds an opposition between obeying commandments and
working in the Spirit.
b) Comments:
i) Such an opposition or antagonism is not found in Scripture. It is
true that mere obedience to commands without a heart renewed by
the Spirit is worthless; but such obedience is not true obedience
either.
ii) The two need not compete, for each has a distinct function in
equipping us for good works. The commands tell us God’s will,
and the Spirit enables us to do it. Neither can do the job of the
other.
92
iii) It is true that, as we mature in the Lord, our obedience becomes
less labored, more spontaneous, in those areas in which are
becoming sanctified [cf. d., below]. We do not always need to look
up chapter and verse; we know God’s law so well that it is written
on the heart, and we do it simply out of gratefulness and delight.
Even in such cases, however, it is the law which we obey out of
gratefulness and delight.
c) It involves Christ in union with us and us in union with Him.
i) Regeneration, justification, adoption, sanctification, glorification
are aspects of our union with Christ (Gaffin).
ii) Faith, repentance, these represent union with Christ “from our
side”. We do these things because we are in Christ. They represent
our reception of Christ.
d. Note ethical goodness, freedom, responsibility, authority, unity in the
redeemed [cf. 1., 2., above]. The process of sanctification brings about greater
and greater unity between us and the goodness of Christ which indwells us.
We are light in the Lord, Ephesians 5:8, Matthew 5:14; [cf. above, I.A.]. The
law is written on the heart, [I.B.2.b.]. The goal, again, is that we serve him
gladly from the heart simply because we are his joyful servants; because what
we want to do is to serve him in that way. The service of Christ is perfect
freedom.
C. The Motive of Christian Ethics.
1. The Concept of Motive.
a. “Motive” as reason given for an action: “His motive was revenge.”
i. A norm: “He did it because he was commanded to”—normative
perspective.
ii. A goal: “He did it to achieve this purpose.”—situational perspective.
iii. An inward disposition: “He did it because he was hungry.”—existential
perspective.
a) Overlaps the normative, since it presupposes a norm (that hunger
ought to be satisfied).
b) Overlaps the situational, since it presupposes a goal (the satisfaction of
hunger).
b. “Motive” as efficient cause for an action (whether or not given as reason):
“His political liberalism is motivated by a hatred of his domineering father.”
i. Norms [a. i.] and goals [a. ii.] do not in themselves cause actions unless
accompanied by an inward commitment to obey the norm or to achieve the
goal [a. iii.].
ii. Thus, motive, in the second sense, is roughly equivalent to motive in sense
a.
iii. However, an inward disposition may cause an action even when it is not
acknowledged as a reason for the action, and even when it functions
unconsciously.
93
c. The existential perspective deals with “motive” in senses a. iii. and b. The
motives discussed (love, hate, faith, rebellion, etc.) will often be motives in
both senses, but always in sense b.
2. The Necessity of a Right Motive (The Inwardness of Biblical Ethics).
a. The demand for heart-righteousness, Deuteronomy 6:5; Matthew 5:8, etc.
b. The polemic against externalism and hypocrisy, Isaiah 29:13f.; Matthew 23.
c. The necessity of faith, love, etc., for any good work. Romans 14:23.
d. Revelation as writing on the heart (cf. Christian Mind course): I Corinthians
13, to bring saving benefit, the word must be applied to the most basic level of
man’s being.
3. Formulations of Motive.
a. Here, we shall consider those “inward dispositions” which, in Scripture, are
considered necessary and sufficient for good works. “Virtue ethics.”
i. “Necessary” = without them, there can be no good work.
ii. “Sufficient” = any work motivated by them will be good.
b. Each of these may be regarded as “perspectives” on the whole regenerate
character.
i. None is ever found without the others.
ii. Each characterizes each of the others: Faith is loving (Galatians 5:6); love
believes (I Corinthians 13:7), etc.
iii. The regenerate life is characterized by all of them.
iv. This does not make them all synonymous. They are different
“perspectives”. While they all describe the regenerate life, they do it in
different ways. Thus, love, e.g., cannot be substituted for faith in the
expression “”justification by faith alone”. Faith describes the regenerate
life specifically as trusting and receiving Christ, and these qualities have a
special role in justification.
c. Faith.
i. Its basic character (review from Doctrine of the Holy Spirit course)
a) Receiving the free gift of salvation.
b) Trusting Christ as savior and Lord (involves understanding and
believing the word, Romans 4).
ii. Relation to works.
a) Faith is an obedient response to a divine command,, the command to
believe, and therefore is itself a good work.
b) One who has faith will inevitably do good works, so that there is no
true faith without good works (James 2:14-26; Galatians 5:6).
c) Thus, works are an evidence of faith (James 2, Hebrews 11).
d) Faith is not a particular act which we can distinguish and isolate from
all others. It is a way of doing other things.
i) Consider this model: Faith is one act, followed by other acts
(“works”). We believe at one time, and that act of believing gives
us the strength to do other things (good works).
94
A) It is like eating a candy bar and thereby getting strength to set a
pole vaulting record.
B) The model of the evangelistic meeting: coming forward is
faith; what follows is works.
ii) This model is misleading.
(1) What is the one act which constitutes faith (analogous to eating
the candy bar)?
(a) Not a concrete physical act, like raising one’s hand at an
evangelistic rally, or submitting to baptism. These can be
done hypocritically, unfaithful, and well as faithfully.
(b) Not a concrete mental action (like praying a silent prayer,
or saying “yes” to Jesus inwardly). These acts too can be
hypocritical as well as faithful.
(c) Not something utterly mysterious, incapable of concrete
definition. For in Scripture, “faith” is a word in the
common language of Christians.
(2) Trusting Christ is not something that I do, and then stop doing,
before I obey. Rather, faith is particularly evident during
obedience.
(3) Trusting is most naturally understood as a characteristic of
actions (including thoughts). The child trusts his father to catch
him, not primarily before he jumps, but as he jumps. To trust is
to act on the assumption that the object of our trust is reliable.
(4) Thus, the close relation between faith and obedience in
Scripture. It is not just that obedience always follows faith.
Rather, faith and obedience are simultaneous, and even beyond
that, logically involved in one another, inseparable in concept.
Obedience always involves faith, and vice-versa.
iii) Conclusions.
(1) Faith is not something distinctively “mental” as opposed to
something “physical” (G. Clark, Religion, Reason and
Revelation). It is as likely to be present (or absent) in physical
acts as in mental acts. (Cf. the child jumping into father’s
arms—perhaps without reflection; Abraham leaving Ur.)
(2) Faith is not some act that we perform for a time and then stop
doing in order to do something else. It pertains to all our
actions insofar as these are obedient to God.
(3) Faith is “adjectival” or “adverbial”. It is a quality of other acts,
not something that can be performed by itself.
e) However, although the relation of faith to works is so close that faith
involves works, faith does not justify us in virtue of its character as
obedience. It justifies by virtue of its quality as trust and receiving of
Christ. It justifies because it looks away from itself, even from
obedience, to Christ and his salvation.
95
iii. The necessity and sufficiency of faith for good works.
a) Necessity, Hebrews 11:6; Romans 14:23.
b) Sufficiency, Genesis 15:6; New Testament parallels.
iv. Faith as motive.
a) Exhortations to act in faith, Matthew 8:10, 9:2, 22, 17:20, 21:22, etc.
b) Ethical appeal to the great realities which are the object of Christian
faith, Ephesians 4:1ff., Romans 12:1ff., etc.
c) Indications that only believers are capable of doing good works.
d) Inseparability of faith from good works and vice-versa (above).
d. Repentance.
i. Repentance is the negative side of faith and inseparable from it. It is
turning away from sin, while faith is turning to Christ. Each involves the
other.
ii. Repentance, therefore, functions as a motive as does faith, Matthew 3:8;
Acts 26:20; II Timothy 2:25f., Revelation 2:5.
iii. As faith is not only a preparation for action but a quality of actions, so is
repentance. Repentance is not just believing that one is a sinner, or feeling
sorry, or even hating one’s sins. Repentance is actually turning away from
sin, and that is found only in one’s actions.
e. Fear of God—see Murray, Principles, X.
f. Hope.
i. Hope is faith directed toward the future aspect of salvation. Like faith, it is
firm and sure, not tentative or wishful as the English word “hope”
sometimes suggests. Romans 5:5; I Corinthians 1:7; I Timothy 1:1;
Hebrews 3:6.
ii. As such, hope functions as a motive to good works.
a) Specific references, Acts 23:6, parallels; Romans 5:4ff.; II Corinthians
3:12ff.; Ephesians 4:4; Colossians 1:5 (there said to motivate faith and
love!), I Thessalonians 5:8, etc.
b) Ethical passages motivating obedience by presenting the
consummation of redemption [Above, II.B.1.c.v.].
g. Love
i. Prominence of the love-commandment in Scripture, c. I.D.9.
ii. Relation of the love-commandment to the rest of the law, also cf. I.D.9.
iii. Necessity and sufficiency for good works, I Corinthians 13.
iv. Basic characteristics. (Here, love of God and of one another will be treated
as one—cf. I John 4:19ff.)
a) Gratefulness.
i) In the covenant structure, the love-command follows and
presupposes the historical prologue, in which the suzerain’s
gracious deeds are set forth. Love, then, is the vassal’s grateful
response to the suzerain’s benevolence.
96
ii) In the Old Testament structure, love is particularly Israel’s grateful
response to God for his taking Israel to himself and delivering
them from death.
iii) The New Testament calls us to love as God first loved us in Christ,
I John 4:7-21; John 13:34f.
iv) Note, apart from use of the term “love,” the biblical emphasis on
thanksgiving through offering, prayer, actions: gratefulness as
“motive”. Emphasis of Heidelberg Catechism.
b) Covenant Loyalty.
i) “Love” is the term used in the treaties to describe the fundamental
responsibility of the vassal: to give his ultimate loyalty exclusively
to his covenant Lord, to avoid any competing treaty—
relationships.
ii) Note this emphasis in Israel’s fundamental confession of faith,
Deuteronomy 6:5ff., and in the first commandment of the
Decalogue, which takes the role of a “love-command” in the
Decalogue structure.
iii) In the New Testament also, love is covenant loyalty. It is a
commitment to Christ as the only Lord and therefore a resolution
to keep (obey) him [above, I.D.9.]. Thus, it is the mark of
Christians as opposed to those outside the covenant (John 13:34f.,
etc.).
iv) As loyalty to the whole covenant institution, love binds the vassals
to one another as to the suzerain. I John 4:19ff.
v) Douma, “To love means to stick with your choice.” The Ten
Commandments, 21.
c) Comprehensive Reorientation of Life.
i) Deuteronomy 6:5f. and its New Testament allusions indicate that
the love of God is a loyalty that is to permeate all aspects of life, so
that nothing is left unaffected by it.
ii) Note the comprehensiveness of love as a way of life in I
Corinthians 13, particularly its connections with all other Christian
virtues.
iii) It has sometimes been asked whether the concept of love
undergoes change from Deuteronomy (covenantal love—a relation
of loyalty and obedience) to the later Old Testament (in Hosea, a
more emotional commitment, focused on marriage rather than
politics as a model).
(1) Remember, however, that marriage, life politics, is essentially
covenantal in character and involves loyalty and obedience, as
Hosea makes clear.
(2) Remember also that covenantal love, being a heartcommitment,
a commitment of the whole person (nation),
engages the emotions as every other part of life. One cannot
97
love God with his whole heart while remaining cool to him. He
demands (and wins) our emotional allegiance along with the
rest of what we are.
(3) God’s love for us is highly emotional, Psm. 103:13, Isa. 49:15,
66:13, Hos. 11:3.
d) Imitation of God’s grace.
i) Cf. imitation of God as fundamental principle of biblical ethics,
I.A.3.
ii) Those who have been delivered will seek to deliver others,
Deuteronomy 5:15; Matthew 18:21-35.
iii) Thus, we are called to imitate specifically God’s love for us by
loving one another in the same way, John 13:34f.; I John 4:7-21.
e) Imitation of the Atonement: laying down our lives for one another, I
John 3:16.
i) The love of God which we are to imitate is most precisely
displayed in the atonement: John 3:16, 15:13; Romans 5:8, 8:39 (in
context); Ephesians 2:4f.; II Thessalonians 2:16; I John 3:16, 4:9f.;
Revelation 1:5. Cf. Mark 10:45; I Peter 2:18-25; Philippians 2:1-
11.
ii) Involves loving the “unlovely,” since we were unlovely when
Christ loved us, Romans 5:8; Luke 14:21; Matthew 9:9-13.
iii) Involves putting the interests of others above our own, Philippians
2.
f) Imitation of God’s Common Grace: love of enemies, Matthew 5:43-
48; Galatians 6:10; Exodus 23:4.
i) Question of the Imprecatory Psalms:
A) Remember that the Psalms are communal, not merely
individual songs, and that they call down the wrath of God
against those who oppose that nation identified with the
Kingdom of God. In our time, these are not so clearly
identified, and the long-suffering of God in our age is more
central.
B) Nevertheless, there are imprecations in the NT as well as the
OT: Matt. 23:17ff, Acts 1:16-20, Rom. 11:9-10, Gal. 1:8ff,
Rev. 6:10, 18:20. Jesus takes Psm. 69 on his lips, John 2:17,
15:25, Rom. 15:3.
C) And the OT, like the New, prohibits personal vengeance (Lev.
19:17f, Psm. 5:6, 7:4, Prov. 20:22).
D) It is not wrong, however, to call down God’s wrath on those
who clearly oppose his kingdom—with the understanding that
God may answer that prayer by bringing his wrath upon Jesus.
E) A proper imprecation disclaims personal vengeance. It is a
prayer for the vindication of God’s name against rebels,
leaving vengeance in God’s hands.
98
F) God has revealed that he will show vengeance to some. The
imprecatory Psalms are our “Amen” to his justice.
ii) Note “priority” given to the “household of faith” in Galatians 6:10.
This is like the priority of the family—everyone must provide for
his own household (I Timothy 5:8) “especially”. Our brothers and
sisters in Christ will naturally be closer to us than those outside—
our closest friends. But this does not require any mechanical
computation dividing the church’s funds into certain percentages.
We are to be ready to meet the needs of those whom we can help,
without asking first about national or religious allegiance, Luke
10:25-37.
g) Seeking out responsibility.
i) Love is a disposition to keep the commandments of God [I.D.9.c.].
ii) Love seeks out what we can do to serve one another [above, d)-f)].
iii) Love, therefore, gives an inevitably positive thrust to the law of
God, which tends often to favor negative formulation. It is not an
adequate response to the law simply to abstain from certain things.
(If that were true, we could achieve sanctification by remaining in
bed.) Love calls the believer to seek out ways of doing positive
good, not merely of avoiding evil.
iv) We may, therefore, see Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount as an
exposition of the law in light of the love-commandment.
v) Love involves a concern for justice, not only mercy or
benevolence. (Response to common question of whether love as a
basic principle of Christian ethics must be supplemented by justice
(Schleiermacher, Ritschl, Niebuhr, Ramsey): the question assumes
a sub-biblical concept of love.)
h. Hatred of evil, Gen. 3:15, Psm. 139:21f.
h. Other Christian Virtues (Galatians 5:22f., elsewhere): other “perspectives” on
the Christian motive. Love is focal among them since it makes explicit the
basic motivation of the atonement. Yet, all can teach us about the
ramifications of love.
D. The New Life as a Source of Ethical Knowledge (overlap with normative
perspective).
In order to know what to do, we must know God’s law (normative perspective), the
situation to which the law applies (situational), and ourselves as those who apply it
(existential). The redemptive transformation makes us into new creatures who are
capable of applying the law as God intended.
1. The Word as God’s Presence in Blessing.
a. Scripture speaks of God’s word in at least three ways:
i. Decree—the word by which God directs the whole course of nature and
history.
ii. Address—the word by which he speaks to his creatures in meaningful
sentences.
99
iii. Presence—the word by which he comes to his creatures, by which he lives
with them. Cf. syllabus on Doctrine of the Word of God.
b. By his word, God dwells with believers to bring blessing.
i. God’s “name” placed on his people.
ii. The word written on their heart.
iii. The word as containing sanctifying power, Isaiah 55:11; Genesis 18:4;
Luke 1:37; Matthew 4:4; Hebrews 4:12.
iv. “Revelation” as the knowledge of God given to all believers (Matthew
11:25; Ephesians 1:17).
v. Christ as the present word, John 1:14, etc.
vi. The Spirit as the breath which drives the word into the heart,
I Thessalonians 1:5, etc.
c. Formulation.
i. Not a continuing special revelation, but an application to the heart of that
revelation already given.
ii. Specifically, the taking root of God’s address in our heart so as to create
true obedience.
iii. To have the word (in this sense of “word”) is to be actually obedient.
Knowing it and doing it, therefore, coincide.
iv. Since the word in this sense makes us obedient, we may say that it enables
us to translate precept into action, to apply the written word in our actual
decisions.
v. Without this continuing divine work, we would be unable to do any good
thing. Scripture itself does not make us good, unless the Spirit makes us
obedient to Scripture.
vi. To speak of the “word” in this sense is to speak of all the divine gifts
which produce sanctification.
vii. We ought to seek these blessings through all the “means of grace,”
through the word as address (Scripture, preaching, counsel), the
sacraments, prayer.
d. Implications.
i. We can see already that there is a kind of ethical knowledge (knowing
how to obey, having ethical ability) which requires the sanctifying work of
the Spirit. More on this below.
ii. Ethics, therefore, can never be a merely academic discipline. It is never a
matter of merely coming up with the best verbal formulation of ethical
principle. Even an exhaustive catalogue to ethical principles (applications
of Scripture) will not produce holiness unless the Spirit applies the word to
the heart.
iii. When we go to Scripture as a means of grace, we ought to seek not only
the answers to questions, but also the power of the Spirit, working in and
through the word.
iv. Here, then, is another reason why all aspects of Scripture, not just the laws
and ethical admonitions, are relevant to ethics. The questions, commands,
100
prose, poetry, parables, history, etc., all serve equally as vehicles of that
transforming power. Through the all, God turns our hearts to seek him.
2. Ethical Knowledge as Product of Sanctification.
That ethical knowledge which is peculiar to the Christian is inseparable from
obedience [cf. c.iii., above]. That knowledge produced by sanctification is
obedience.
a. Wisdom.
i. Essentially a skill—”knowing how,” rather than “knowing that” [Exodus
31:1-5; cf. Ryle, The Concept of Mind] (These are related, but are not the
same thing.)
ii. In Scripture, it sometimes takes on an ethical character—the skill of godly
living, James 3:13-17.
iii. Specifically, wisdom is often the ability to do the right thing in particular
(especially in difficult) situations. Luke 21:14f.
iv. Godly speech seems to be particularly emphasized as wise: Acts 6:10, I
Corinthians 2:6 (cf. 1, 4, 13), 12:8; II Peter 3:15; Colossians 1:28.
v. Wisdom is an ethical guide, Proverbs 3:5f., 22-26, producing confidence.
vi. Source: redemptive covenantal communication of God’s wisdom to us by
his word and Spirit: Proverbs 3:19, 8:30, 28:7-9, 30:5; Jeremiah 8:8f;
Exodus 28:3, 13:3; Deuteronomy 34:9; Acts 6:3; I Corinthians 1:24, 30,
2:6-16; Colossians 2:3, 3:16; II Timothy 3:15.
vii. Note well: One cannot claim to have wisdom in this redemptive sense
unless he is obedient.
b. Knowledge (cf. Doctrine of the Knowledge of God).
i. To “know God” in the deepest sense is to know his covenant lordship.
ii. Involves knowledge of the three perspectives.
a) The works of God (situational).
b) The will of God (normative).
c) Self in the presence of God (existential).
iii. Given by grace, by Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
iv. Based on the Word of God.
v. Obedience is not only a consequence, but a constitutive aspect of the
knowledge, so that we cannot have knowledge without obedience:
Jeremiah 22:16, 31:31f., Hosea 4:1f., 6:6; John 7:17, 8:19, 32, 41, 55,
17:25; I John 2:3-5, 2:12ff., 3:16, 4:7; Philippians 3:8-11; I Corinthians
2:6f., 13; II Corinthians 10:5; Ephesians 3:17-19, 4:13; II Timothy 2:22f.;
II Peter 1:3, 5, 2:18-20; II Thessalonians 1:8f.
c. Truth (cf. Doctrine of the Knowledge of God; Murray, Principles, 123-128;
Vos, Biblical Theology, 382f.).
i. Concept.
a) “Metaphysical” absoluteness.
b) “Epistemological” correctness.
c) “Ethical” rightness
101
ii. Source: God in Christ by word and Spirit.
iii. One cannot, therefore, say that he has the truth in the fullest biblical sense
unless, by God’s grace, he is walking in the truth, obeying the truth.
d. Doctrine.
i. The teaching of the word of God to promote spiritual health (I Timothy
1:10, 4:6, 6:3; II Timothy 1:13, 4:3; Titus 1:9).
ii. This teaching is done by all Christians, and not only in formal discourse
(Colossians 3:16!).
e. Conclusion: The knowledge conferred in the process of sanctification is not
only the information necessary for obedience, but obedience itself.
3. Intellectual Knowledge and Ethical Knowledge.
How, then, does intellectual knowledge fit into the overall pattern of “knowledge”
in the ethical-redemptive sense?
a. The ethical presupposes the intellectual, Hebrews 11:6; I John 4:2, etc.
i. These passages, of course, are talking about adults of normal intelligence
and do not resolve questions about the status of infants, the mentally
retarded, etc.
ii. This is the sort of point generally in view when people say that “life ought
to be built on doctrine”. That slogan misleads, I think, by equating
doctrine with a set of propositions (cf. 2.d., above), but the intent of it is
biblical.
b. The intellectual presupposes the ethical. (This point is less often made and
less often understood.)
i. The unbeliever’s ethical rebellion compromises even his “intellectual”
knowledge. For to know the way of blessing and willfully to forsake it is a
stupid response. Cf. Doctrine of the Knowledge of God. The “intellectual
knowledge” of the unbeliever is paradoxical. He knows (and thus is
responsible), but in some sense does not know (because he renounces his
knowledge).
ii. Since, then, the grace of God overcomes our unbelief and its consequences
it overcomes even he “intellectual” weakness caused by unbelief. Thus,
when Scripture speaks of knowledge in general coming through
sanctifying grace (I Corinthians 8:1-4; I Timothy 1:5-11; I John 2:3-6, 9-
11, 20-27, 4:2f., 8, 13-17, 5:2f.; John 7:17, 11:40; Ephesians 1:17f.,
3:18f.), it means knowledge as a whole. God’s gift of ethical righteousness
brings restoration of knowledge, even in the “intellectual” sense.
iii. Note in the above passages especially the connection between
“intellectual” knowledge and love (I Corinthians 8:1-4, 13:7, 11-13;
Philippians 1:10; I Timothy 1:5-11; I John 2:9-11; Ephesians 3:17f.), faith
(John 11:40), obedience (I John 2:3-6, 5:2f.; John 7:17).
iv. Scripture teaches us our duty, among other ways, by presenting the
Christian virtues (the fruit of the Spirit). We can learn more about our duty
by asking “How can I be more loving, gentle, etc.?”
102
v. Dokimazein: A life of obedience gives us increasing discernment as to
what our duties are.
a) Romans 12:1f.
i) The language of living sacrifice, nonconformity to the world,
transformation, renewal of the mind emphasizes he necessity of
ethical change.
ii) One who is so transformed will “prove what the will of the Lord
is”.
(1) “Prove” (dokimazein) = “to discover, to find out or learn by
experience what the will of God is and therefore to learn how
approved the will of God is” (Murray, Romans, ad loc.). It is
both learning what God wants and coming to approve of it.
(2) But notice that here ethical transformation precedes knowledge
of God’s will, oddly enough. The point seems to be that the
more we obey, the more we know of our duty. The new life
equips us to know.
b) Philippians 1:10.
i) Love produces knowledge and aisthesis (perception, discernment,
sensitivity: a moral sense, we might say).
ii) This sensitivity enables us to prove (dokimazein) ta diapheronta
(what is important, what really matters at a particular time).
iii) Here again, obedience (love) gives me a sensitivity to God’s will,
to know what to do.
c) Ephesians 5:8-10.
i) We are light, and that inevitably involves obedience [cf. earlier
discussion about God as light, I.A.10. Also the discussion of
“Goodness and the Being of Man”, above, III.B.]. Note again how
righteousness comes from an inward principle.
ii) That obedience enables us to know God’s will, verse 10.
d) Hebrews 5:11-14 (no dokimazein here, but the same idea).
i) Problem: doctrinal immaturity, inability to understand
Melchizedek priesthood (11).
(1) They don’t even understand the most basic things (12; cf. 6:1-
2).
(2) They lack a standard (logos; cf. F.F. Bruce) of righteousness.
Doctrinal immaturity is ethical immaturity.
(3) They are “without experience of” (apeiros) the standard. The
problem is somehow related to inexperience. In some sense, it
requires experience in the Christian life to understand the great
doctrines.
ii) Characteristics of doctrinal maturity (14).
(1) They have a moral sense (aistheteria—cf. Philippians 1:10).
(2) The sense is exercised; note emphasis on experience,
connotation of rigor.
103
(3) The exercise is “by reason of use” (exis, a skill acquired
through practice). The more we use our moral sense, the more
accurate it becomes.
(4) The result of this exercise: the discernment of good and evil.
Thus, we come to know our duty through vigorous moral
exercise.
(5) The further result (in context): doctrinal discernment. We come
to understand the Melchizedek priesthood as we obey God. As
“life is built on doctrine,” so “doctrine is built on life.”
e) Conclusion: knowing our duty presupposes sanctification. It
presupposes active involvement in the spiritual warfare. We may never
suppose that knowledge of our duty always comes before obedience,
as though we could spend three years studying God’s will and then do
it. Learning and doing God’s will are simultaneous.
vi. Some principles implicit in these passages. (The above teachings are
rather hard to understand in the context of our intellectualistic heritage.
The following comments may help us to understand why Scripture
presents the matter as it does.)
a) The intellect is part of life. Its health depends on the health of the
whole organism. Intellectual acts are acts of the whole person, and like
all other acts, they are subject to sin and sanctification. Sanctification
in one area of life begets sanctification in others. Thus, it is not
surprising that in some senses obedience is prior to intellectual
understanding. Cf. John 3:3.
b) Thinking presupposes the ability to think; “knowing that” presupposes
“knowing how”. “Knowing how” involves obedience to a norm, i.e.,
doing right.
c) What does it mean to “have a concept” of something? Well, when we
test people to see if they have the right “concept” of, say, a triangle,
we find out what they can do. “Having a concept” always involves
being able to do certain things. It is a disposition to action. Such
dispositions to action are ethically directed—directed toward a
particular goal which is either godly or sinful. Thus, concept
presupposes disposition to act, which, in turn, presupposes ethical
dispositions. (For a Christian” to have a “right concept” of God
implies being ready to endure hardship for the sake of Christ. Concepts
can take a long time to acquire. Compare the apostle Paul saying “We
are more than conquerors” with a Sunday School class of five-yearolds
saying the verse).
d) Knowing our duty involves application of Scripture to situations [I.,
II.], and that, in turn, involves a particular kind of moral vision.
i) Ethical judgments involve seeing our situations “in the light of”
biblical categories. We ask, “Is this act murder?” “Is this act
stealing?” etc. We want to call our experiences by their biblical
names.
104
ii) The text itself does not perform this job. Scripture does not
mention each of our experiences specifically. Categorizing our
experiences under biblical rubrics, then, is something that we must
do, by God’s enabling.
iii) This moral task involves:
(1) Seeing patterns in our experience which can be compared with
similar patterns in biblical events. (Hijacking planes is different
from stealing oxen, but there is a common pattern).
(2) Seeing analogies between our experiences and biblical
teachings, stories, etc.
(3) (Cf. the aesthetic terminology in Philippians 1:10; Hebrews
5:11-14: the moral sense is in some ways like an aesthetic
sensitivity.)
iv) This moral discernment is not simply a matter of sense-experience.
(1) The “duck-rabbit”: You can see the location of every line in the
picture, even reproduce the picture, without having the “rabbitaspect”
dawn on you. Some would not even recognize the
duck, though they see all the lines. “Seeing as” is not the same
as “seeing”.
(2) Seeing a pattern involves experience in the world and in
cultural means of representing the world. (In the above
example, it helps to have seen ducks, rabbits, and other pictures
of ducks and rabbits.)
(3) Seeing ethically relevant patterns is even more complicated.
One can have a very good grasp of what takes place without
“seeing” the relevant ethical patterns and analogies, without
seeing this “as” adultery, Sabbath breaking, etc.
(4) Cf. this moral example: I feel rage. Is that rage to be
understood as righteous indignation (John 2:14ff.) or is it
murderous hatred (Matthew 5:22)? The answer may not be
obvious.
(a) I may have memorized the whole Bible and still not seen
the relevant pattern there.
(b) I may have very good knowledge of myself at one level,
without seeing the pattern.
(c) Thus, it is not a mere question of intelligence or senseperception.
v) This discernment presupposes spiritual maturity. A mature
Christian can do it better than an immature one. And this maturity
is not necessarily equivalent to intelligence or education. Often,
uneducated Christians will be among the wisest in noting the
patterns and analogies.
vi) The discernment can come about in unexpected ways.
105
(1) It may, of course, come about in expected ways: perhaps a
verse of Scripture coming to mind, perhaps a fact of experience
not noticed before (like a line on the duck-rabbit not noticed).
(2) But, since one may know all the verses, and all the facts,
without knowing the patterns, often the insight will come in
odd ways.
(3) David’s sin with Bathsheba is an example.
(a) David knew the Scriptures; he knew adultery and murder
were wrong.
(b) David knew what he had done.
(c) Yet somehow, the moral dimension of his acts was missed.
Perhaps, he had rationalized; perhaps, he was spiritually
cold.
(d) Nathan revealed, in a sense, no new facts to David—neither
facts about Scripture nor facts about his actions. Rather, he
put the facts already known into a pattern which presented
obvious analogies with Scripture. The parable of the ewe
lamb shocked David into seeing the pattern with full
clarity.
vii) Thus, ethical discourse is never merely a matter of setting forth
facts and verses.
(1) In an ethical debate, one or both parties may be very
knowledgeable about Scripture and experience, but unable to
make the connections because of immaturity.
(2) Thus, it may sometimes be useful, not only to reason, but also
to tell stories, to pray, to sing, to share analogies, to do odd
things for “shock value” (Ezekiel), to teach by example.
(3) Sometimes, ethical agreement may be impossible due to the
lack of vision of one or both parties. It may be necessary to
abandon the discussion until the immature party has grown. Go
out and live the Christian life, then come back and think some
more. Exercise your discernment!
(4) Thus, for still another reason, we do not dare to try to work out
all the answers before engaging in the Spiritual warfare.
e) The “Doctrine of Guidance”.
i) Two Extremes.
(1) Notion that guidance is essentially an academic process—the
process of intellectual study of Scripture (danger in reformed
circles.)
(2) Notion that guidance is by divine addresses above and beyond
Scripture (danger in Pentecostalism).
ii) Both these views think that ethical knowledge is essentially a
matter of acquiring propositional information. If we have an ethical
problem, we merely need to know more facts.
106
iii) They tend to ignore:
(1) That we need facts about the situation, as well as facts about
revelation (situational perspective).
(2) That we need the insight to see patterns and analogies.
(3) That such insight often comes about in other ways than by
academic study.
(4) That the Spirit’s work in our time is not the giving of new
canonical revelation but is nevertheless crucial—the opening of
our eyes to see how Scripture applies.
iv) Thus, guidance does not add to Scripture; but on the other hand, it
is far from an academic or impersonal process. The believer is
guided in a very personal, we might even say direct, manner.
Often, his workings are mysterious, perhaps even mystical in some
sense.
vii. Conclusion: The ethical is in some senses prior to the intellectual. If “life
is built on doctrine,” doctrine being understood as intellectual
understanding of propositional revelation, then it is also true that doctrine
is built on life in various ways. There is a reciprocity between the two.
Neither functions without the other.
4. The Organs of Ethical Knowledge.
a. The Heart.
i. The “work of the law” written on the heart (Romans 2:15): all of us know
by nature the law of God in its fundamental demands. Even under sin,
man’s own nature is revelational of God and of God’s will. [Cf. I.B.2.b.].
ii. The word “written on the heart” of the regenerate [Jeremiah 31:33ff.; cf.
I.B.2.b.]. This is a more profound relation between the word and our being
than that described in i. If the word is written on the heart, then, we not
only know God’s requirements, but we obey them by nature. Thus, the
regenerate heart is naturally inclined to do God’s will.
iii. The heart convicting us of sin, II Samuel 24:10.
iv. In general, the heart is the “center” of man’s being. To say that the heart is
a source of ethical knowledge is to say that our nature as a whole reveals
God’s will, and [in case ii.] even inclines us to do God’s will (ethical
knowledge as involving actual obedience).
v. Since man as a whole discerns God’s will, we must not press too hard the
various divisions of man into “faculties” (reason, will, memory, etc.) or
elevate one faculty above another as an ethical authority within man.
Those distinctions have some value [see below], but must be seen as in
some measure “abstractions”. Nor are they neatly distinguishable from one
another.
vi. On the other hand, if man as a whole is an organ of knowledge, then all
aspects of man are involved, somehow in ethical knowledge. Thus, there is
some value in making distinctions within man to see in more detail how
the knowledge functions.
107
b. Synteresis (or synderesis).
i. In Thomas Aquinas, synteresis is reason as the faculty by which the first
principles of morality are known.
ii. These cannot be derived from anything more ultimate, but are a “habit” of
the soul.
iii. As such, they form the major premises of ethical syllogisms (“All stealing
is wrong,” etc.).
iv. The concept roughly coincides with our description of the “work of the
law” written on the heart [a.i., above]. As such, it is unobjectionable.
v. By making this a faculty of reason, however, Thomas suggests that this is
something autonomous, as Aristotelian reason was conceived to be.
c. Conscience.
i. In Thomas Aquinas, much moral theology.
a) Take the moral syllogism, “All stealing is wrong; embezzling is
stealing; therefore, embezzling is wrong.” As we saw above, the first
premise is supplied by synteresis.
b) The second premise is supplied by “an inferior kind of reason”.
c) Conscience (syneidesis) draws the conclusion, embezzling is wrong.
Thus, conscience is essentially a syllogistic rational process, though
Thomas agrees that the term “conscience” may also be applied to
synteresis.
ii. In Scripture.”
a) “Conscience” (syneidesis) in the New Testament is used in ways
roughly parallel to some Old Testament uses of “heart”. The word
“conscience” is not found in the English Old Testament (KJV), but
there are places where it is a possible translation of “heart”. Cf.
II Samuel 24:10 with New Testament references. We would be
inclined to say that David’s “conscience” smote him. This suggests
that conscience is our inmost being, conceived as a means of ethical
knowledge.
b) Conscience is not the law, or the work of the law [a.i. and a.ii., above];
rather, conscience bears witness to these revelations of God (Romans
2:15, cf. Murray’s commentary). It is, therefore, not autonomous, but
rests upon the revelation of God.
c) Conscience is, therefore, a source of ethical knowledge: Acts 23:1,
24:16; Romans 9:1, 13:5; I Corinthians 8:7-12, 10:25-29 in context;
I Timothy 1:5.
d) There is no Scriptural reason to restrict the work of conscience to the
work of deriving conclusions from ethical premises.
i) Conscience is certainly that which perceives the revelation and
attests its truth.
ii) Conscience convicts us of sin [above examples].
108
iii) Conscience is certainly involved in the perception of patterns and
analogies [above, 3.] whereby we derive the minor premises of
moral syllogisms (“Embezzling is stealing,” e.g.).
(1) It may be identified with that “moral sense” we discussed
earlier which Scripture also speaks of under other names
(aisthesis, aistheterion). That function of conscience is
presented in Scripture as something highly important, the
solution to much ethical perplexity. It is not to be relegated to
“an inferior kind of reason” as in Aquinas.
(2) We identify this with conscience simply because, according to
Scripture, conscience perceives our obligations. This implies
that conscience perceives, not only the law, but the application
of the law.
e) Sin infects even the conscience, I Corinthians 8:7, 12; I Timothy 4:2;
Titus 1:15. Cf. the expression “good conscience” or “pure conscience”.
Sometimes, however, these expressions refer not to the sin or goodness
of the conscience itself, but to the sin or goodness of the person, to
which the conscience testifies.
i) Therefore, conscience is not infallible. If “seared,” it can fail to do
its work of bringing sin to our attention.
ii) There is some paradox here. On the one hand, conscience
sometimes fails; on the other hand, no one is ever without
sufficient knowledge of God’s will to be responsible for sin. We
ought to assume, then, that conscience is never entirely destroyed
in the sinner. (Cf. the problems about the sinner’s having
“knowledge” and having the “image of God”.)
f) It is always wrong to disobey conscience, even when conscience errs,
I Corinthians 8:7, 10, 12 in context. To disobey conscience is, by
definition, to do what we think is wrong. And doing what we think is
wrong always involves a spirit of rebelliousness against God.
g) It is not, however, always right to obey conscience. Obeying
conscience is right only when conscience itself is right.
h) Thus, we have a duty to train the conscience. The conscience must be
sensitized by Scripture and the Spirit so that it becomes a more reliable
guide.
d. Experience.
i. Scripture never deprecates knowledge obtained through the senses, as is
done by rationalistic philosophers. The facts about Christ have been
“heard and seen”. The gospel is based on reports to this effect by
witnesses. (Cf. the emphasis on witnesses in biblical jurisprudence.)
ii. It is by means of our senses that we learn the content of Scripture and the
facts of our situation.
iii. Sense-experience, in itself, is insufficient to teach us our duty (apart from
divine authority, the Spirit, etc.). Yet, it plays an indispensable role in the
discernment of our duty.
109
iv. Scripture is understood only insofar as it makes some connection with our
present experience (meaning as application). We understand the meaning
of Scripture by drawing analogies with the patterns of our own experience
[above, D.3.]. This is not in a technical philosophical sense, but it is
experience, and it involves sensation.
v. Thus, we are better equipped to explain Scripture when we have
experienced the realities to which Scripture refers (e.g. when we have
gone through the same trials and triumphs that the biblical characters have
gone through).
e. Reason.
i. “Reason” is one of the most ambiguous concepts in human thought. Some
meanings:
a) Logic (especially in rationalism, cf. G.H. Clark).
b) The “laws of thought” (law of non-contradiction, etc.).
c) Following a certain method of inquiry.
d) The psychological capacity for making judgments based on various
data. I will assume this definition below.
ii. There is plenty of work for reason to do in the area of ethics.
a) Moral syllogisms.
b) Determining causal relations between means and ends (situational
perspective).
c) Scripture exegesis.
d) Analysis of the situation to which Scripture applies, etc.
iii. Like “conscience” (with which the concept of “reason” overlaps), reason
is infected by sin (cf. apologetics courses). Thus, like conscience, reason is
not infallible. We may therefore say (as we said about conscience) that to
disobey reason is always wrong (God does not want us to live
irrationally), but to obey reason is not necessarily right. Reason must be
trained to operate on godly presuppositions, to use godly methods, to be
sensitive to what really matters.
iv. Like conscience, reason may never suppose itself to be autonomous. The
function of reason is to understand and apply the law, not to create it. And
even the understanding and application must be done obediently.
f. Will.
i. “Will,” in general, is our ability to choose to act in a particular way. Thus,
will is always involved in any moral act or decision.
ii. Will is also involved in moral deliberation (which after all is itself a series
of moral acts and decisions).
a) We choose to reason on certain presuppositions rather than others.
b) We choose to take the language of deliberation in one sense rather than
in another (cf. existentialism).
c) We choose to accept one reason as valid and another as invalid.
iii. All of these choices, on the other hand, may be based on reasons.
110
iv. Thus, it appears that reason and will are mutually dependent. We accept
reasons because we choose them, and we choose because we find those
choices reasonable. Will and reason, therefore, are not neatly
distinguishable. (Cf. earlier discussion of “doctrine” and “life”.)
g. Imagination.
i. The word “imagination” in the English Bible is almost always used in a
bad sense (Jeremiah 3:17, etc.). It represents, however, various Hebrew
and Greek terms which bear little relation to the term “imagination” as
commonly used today; thus, we cannot condemn a positive use of the term
out of hand.
ii. Today, “imagination” can be a synonym for creativity, for the power to
see patterns and analogies, for the power to conceive of possible situations
in which something of importance takes place. As we’ve seen, ethics
presupposes all of these skills.
iii. Imagination can help us in conceiving possible alternative courses of
action, types of terminology, etc.
iv. Imagination may warn us against hasty generalization by presenting us
with possible situations in which our principle does not apply (counterexamples).
h. The Emotions.
i. Scripture does not discuss “the emotions” as an independent item of
concern, any more than it discusses “the intellect” or “the will” in such a
way.
ii. Yet, it speaks a great deal concerning particular emotions—griefs, joys,
anxieties, awe, terror, woe, lust, and also about concepts which have a
large emotional component: love, hate, happiness, etc.
iii. According to Scripture, regeneration reorients our emotional life.
a) We learn to love God and hate evil, to rejoice in the good, to be
content in the face of difficulty, etc.—the opposite of the unbelieving
emotional disposition.
b) Regeneration does not necessarily make us more emotional or less
emotional. We may assume that in this respect believers differ from
one another. Yet, our emotional life, however active it may be, is now
the Lord’s. Thus, our joys, sorrows, etc., are different from what they
were.
c) As there is a change in our emotions by grace, so there is a command
to work out this new principle (gift and task, “already” and “not-yet”).
i) It is sometimes said that feelings cannot be commanded, or even
taught. Hegel (Early Theological Writings) thought that
Christianity was even more reprehensibly authoritarian than
Judaism, because while Judaism commanded actions, Christianity
commanded feelings.
111
ii) Scripture, however, assumes that feelings ought to be changed to
conform to God’s will, and that they can be changed, by thought
and by new habits.
d) Scripture teaches about the emotions, not only by commanding us to
change them, but also by:
i) Presenting sin in its true ugliness (contra Eve, Genesis 3:6).
ii) Presenting the new life as something beautiful and delightful
(rationale for emotive sermons).
iv. Emotions and knowledge.
a) Emotions, like reason, have a “hermeneutical” component; i.e. they
assign (or discover) meaning in various data which they express.
Anger, fear, and delight represent certain assessments of the meaning
of the facts at which one is angry, fearful, or delighted.
b) It may be said, therefore, that the emotions presuppose, or ought to
presuppose, reason; for our feelings ought to be based on true
assessments of meaning, and a true assessment is a rational
assessment.
c) The opposite, however, is also true. Reasoning presupposes emotions.
Illustration: writing a book review is a highly “rational,” even
“academic” or “theoretical” activity. Yet, it is a job that requires a
subtle interplay of emotions and reasoning. I read a chapter; I feel a
certain way about it. I return to verify or falsify my feeling. Perhaps,
the feeling changes as I analyze. Perhaps, the initial analysis agrees
with the initial feeling. Or perhaps, feeling and analysis disagree, in
which case, it is evident to me that the analysis is incomplete.
i) Note that feeling can be said to “lead” the intellect in some senses.
My feelings indicate what, to me, is in need of analysis.
ii) Once I am entirely satisfied emotionally, the analysis usually ends.
iii) If I had no emotions at all about the book, I would not keep on
reading it, much less write about it.
iv) It is hard to imagine any theoretical or rational inquiry which is not
dependent on emotion in some such way. Cf. “cognitive rest” in
DKG.
d) Emotions and reason, then, form a single complex set of capacities by
which we seek to respond rightly to our world. (Other capacities are
also part of the complex—sense-experience, imagination, etc.) Each
involves the other.
e) Scripture never suggests that emotions are naturally more sinful or less
sanctified than reason, or vice-versa. Man, as a whole, is depraved and,
as a whole, is redeemed. At some particular point, however, emotion
may signal an inadequacy in our reasoning [iv.c), above] or vice-versa.
(Checks and balances.)
112
f) Scripture never suggests that emotions in general must be subordinated
to reason or vice-versa, (the former in Greek thought, the latter in, e.g.,
Hume). (Contra Gordon H. Clark, “The Primacy of the Intellect”.)
i) The emotions and the reason ought to agree, to be sure.
ii) “Disagreements between emotions and reason” are best understood
as disagreements between one set of emotion-reasons and another
set of emotion-reasons. One set will have a more emotional cast,
the other, a more rational cast, but neither will be totally devoid of
either emotion or reason.
iii) In cases where “reason and emotion disagree,” the resolution may
involve a better analysis or a better (more godly) emotional
response to the previous analysis. The direction of the solution is
not dictated by the nature of reason and emotion as such.
iv) Illustration: you are persuaded rationally that there can be no good
in Pentecostal worship; but, when you attend a service, you find
yourself (surprisingly!) clapping along, singing, shouting Amen
from the heart. Do you simply rebuke your emotions for
contradicting your intellect? Do you simply abandon your previous
conviction because it no longer “feels right”? Neither. Think it
through, pray about it, study Scripture, train yourself in godly
emotions. It could go either way.
v. Summary: Emotions are aspects of our ethical sensitivity, our aistheteria.
We dare not neglect them as we seek to “prove what the will of the Lord
is.”
PASTORAL AND SOCIAL ETHICS
Lecture Outline, Part Three: Exposition of the Law of God:
Introduction; First and Second Commandments
by John M. Frame
Introduction
A. At this point we return to the normative perspective, as is traditional in Reformed
ethics, asking “What does God’s Word tell us to do?” Remember, however, that other
approaches are also legitimate. I shall from time to time bring light from other
perspectives to our study of the Law.
B. The Decalogue in the Context of the History of Redemption.
1. Limitations of the Decalogue as summary of the law.
a) It is not the only summary, nor the one most recent in the history of
redemption. Cf. Eccl. 12:13, Micah 6:8; Deuteronomy 6:5 (Matthew
22:37ff., parallels); Matthew 5-7 esp. 7:12; I Corinthians 13; Galatians
5:22.
(b) Like the love-commandment, the Decalogue is not sufficient in itself to define
biblical morality.
(1) Even within the Old Testament, the Decalogue is supplemented by the
Book of the Covenant (Exodus 21-24), case law, and application
through non-legal material.
(2) The New Testament provides necessary correlations between the law
and the redemptive work of Christ.
(3) Therefore, to define murder and adultery, e.g., we must consult all of
Scripture, not just the Decalogue.
(4) The Decalogue itself announces that it must be seen in a context of
redemptive reality.
(a) It begins with the announcement of the divine name.
(i) The law, therefore, is not authoritative merely because it
happens to be true, but because of its author.
(ii) We obey the law because of who God is [cf. Part Two, I.A.
Leviticus 18:2, etc.].
(iii) In the law, God reveals himself, his own character, as
Israel’s covenant Lord.
(b) It then summarizes the history of redemption.
(i) The ground of obedience is not simply that the law is a
command, but that God has redeemed his people. Gratitude.
(ii) Note how grace precedes law. Obedience is done in the
context of grace.
b) Some elements of the Decalogue are limited to its historical situation.
IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 3, Number 51, December 17 to December 23, 2001
114
(1) The historical prologue, Ex. 20:2.
(2) Reference to Palestine in the fifth commandment, verse 12.
2. Importance of the Decalogue as summary of the law.
a) Church-historical importance: Reformed catechisms traditionally deal
with ethics in a kind of exposition of the Decalogue. Reformed systematic
theology has also followed this procedure. Thus, this form is convenient
for capturing what reformed people have most wanted to say about
ethics.
b) Uniqueness of the occasion on which it was promulgated [C.1., below].
(1) Fulfillment of the promise of deliverance.
(2) Holiness of the mountain, thunders, lightnings, cloud, trumpet.
(3) This is the only time that the people of God as a whole gathered
together and heard directly the divine voice.
(4) This is the “day of the assembly” (Deuteronomy 9:10, 10:4, 18:16),
the day when Israel was constituted as God’s covenant people. This
is part of our own community memory, since the people of God is
one in all ages. Compare Ex. 19:6, 1 Pet. 2:9, also Rom. 11.
(5) This is the occasion upon which Moses was chosen as the mediator
of God’s law (Exodus 20:19ff.).
c) Uniqueness of its function in the covenant structure.
(1) The Decalogue is the first written “covenant document” (Kline), the
seed out of which grew the biblical canon as a whole. As a seed, we
expect it to contain the whole biblical message in significant
summary.
(2) As the covenant document, it functions as the basic constitution of
Israel.
d) Uniqueness of its publication: “written with the finger of God” (Exodus
31:18; Deuteronomy 9:10).
e) Though the Decalogue is supplemented, it is nevertheless singled out in
the later history of redemption as having a distinctive function within the
canon: Deuteronomy 4:13, 5:1-27, 10:1-5; Matthew 5-7 (much
commentary on Decalogue here), Matthew 19:16ff., parallels; Romans
13:9.
f) The basic requirements of the Old Testament law are not abrogated by
the New Covenant [Part Two, I.D.5.], and the Decalogue does embody,
on the whole, the “basic requirements.”
g) Hermeneutical principle: Generally when we seek light on a biblical
doctrine, we look first at the passages where that doctrine is most focally
and clearly presented. The Old Testament, on the whole, is more
concerned than the New with setting forth our law (ethics, law). The
Torah is the heart of Old Testament law, and the Decalogue is the heart
of the Torah. Redemptive-historical change, of course, presents an
argument against such focus on the Old Testament [Part Two, I.], but
115
with due allowance for such change, considerations of hermeneutics do
argue for it.
3. Conclusion: The limitations of this or any summary must be frankly
acknowledged. Consideration of the Decalogue is not the only way to
summarize biblical ethics, nor is it, in every sense, the best way. Yet, it is one
useful way, and, in some respects, it is uniquely useful.
B. Decalogical Hermeneutics.
1. Breadth of the Commandments.
a) The problem: The Westminster Larger Catechism, Question and Answer
99, presents some rules for “right understanding” of the Decalogue which
seem rather strange in contrast with our normal concept of “grammaticohistorical”
exegesis.
(1) Rule 1 states that the Decalogue requires “the utmost perfection of
every duty” and forbids “the least degree of every sin”. But it appears
that the Decalogue deals only with ten areas of obligation and does
not mention many others. Does the Decalogue really serve as a
complete Christian ethic?
(2) Rule 4: “. . . where a duty is commanded, the contrary sin is
forbidden; and, where a sin is forbidden, the contrary duty is
commanded . . . .”
(a) In normal logic and hermeneutics, we do not deduce commands
from prohibitions and vice-versa. “Keep of the grass.” does not
ordinarily imply that you ought to give some positive
encouragement to the growth of the grass.
(b) Often, it is not clear what “the contrary sin” or “the contrary
duty” is. If I say, “Don’t write your name on the first line of the
paper.”, what is the “contrary duty”? To write someone else’s
name? To write your own name on the second line or some
other line? To write nothing at all? The “contrary duty,” it would
seem, must be mentioned specifically; we cannot simply deduce
it from the prohibition.
(3) Question and Answer 108: The second commandment, we are told,
requires such things as administration of the sacraments, religious
fasting, vows. How are such duties to be found in the language of the
commandment, granted the principles of “grammatico-historical”
exegesis?
b) Response: Present-day use of these principles, without explanation, is
bound to cause confusion among those trained in “scientific exegesis”.
The writers of the catechism did not anticipate the distinctions which we,
today, would consider necessary. Yet, the point they were making was
not only valid, but important, and still is today. The catechism is looking
at the sins described in the light of the whole Bible, and finds that when
the whole Bible is consulted, each sin referred to in the Decalogue
includes all the others (cf. James 2:10).
116
(1) The first commandment: “other gods” include Mammon (money,
Matthew 6:24), or anything else which competes with God for our
ultimate loyalty. Since any sin is disloyalty to God, violation of any
commandment is also violation of the first. Thus, all sin is violation
of the first commandment. The commandment forbids all sins.
(2) The second commandment, similarly: the sin of worshipping a graven
image is in worshipping anything (or worshipping by means of
anything) of human devising. “Worship” can be a broad ethical
concept in Scripture as well as a narrowly cultic one (cf. Romans
12:1f.). Any sin involves following our own purposes instead of
God’s, false worship.
(3) In the third commandment, the “name of the Lord” can refer to
God’s entire self-revelation; and disobedience of any sort to that
revelation can be described as “vanity”.
(4) The Sabbath commandment demands godly use of our entire
calendar—the six days is to do God’s will, any ungodly use of time
may be seen as transgression of the fourth commandment.
(5) “Father and mother” in the fifth commandment can be read broadly
to refer to all authority [see later discussion] and even the authority
of God himself (Malachi 1:6) so that all disobedience to God is
violation of the fifth commandment.
(6) Jesus interprets the sixth commandment to prohibit unrighteous
anger (Matthew 5:22) because of its disrespect for life. Since all sin
manifests such disrespect for life, all sin violates the sixth
commandment. It would not be wrong either to include a respect for
spiritual life within the scope of this commandment.
(7) Adultery is frequently used in Scripture as a metaphor (indeed, more
than a metaphor) for idolatry, Israel being Jehovah’s unfaithful wife.
The marriage figure is a prominent biblical description of the
covenant order. Breaking the covenant at any point is adultery.
(8) Withholding tithes and offerings—God’s due—is stealing (Malachi
3:8). Thus, to withhold any honor due to God falls under the same
condemnation.
(9) “Witnessing” in Scripture is something you are, more than something
you do [see later discussion]. It involves not only speech, but actions
as well. It is comprehensive.
(10) Coveting, like stealing, is involved in all sin. Sinful acts are the
product of the selfish heart. There is, therefore, a unity to sin as there
is a unity to righteousness (=love).
c. Some principles:
1) The Catechism seems to assume the principle that proper applications of
the commandments are aspects of their meaning.
2) It understands the concepts of the Decalogue (adultery, murder, etc.) in
their full biblical meaning, bringing in data from all Scripture.
117
3) It recognizes that each commandment is part of a broad system of
commands, each of which takes the others into account.
4) The system as a whole requires primarily heart-obedience (the law of
love). If your heart hates murder, it will motivate you positively to seek
your neighbor’s health.
2. Narrowness of the Commandments: Even though each commandment
includes all the others, the commandments are not all synonymous. Each looks
at our total obligation from a different perspective, in different terms. Lying is
not precisely the same thing as stealing.
a) There is a dangerous tendency in some ethical writing to eliminate
specific meaning in favor of general meaning.
(1) E.g., “Adultery is not mere abstinence from extra-marital sex, but is
really whole-souled fidelity to God;” “The sixth commandment tells
us to promote God’s eternal life, and so has no bearing on abortion.”
(2) That is unwarranted.
(a) The general has no meaning apart from the specific. What is
“spiritual chastity” if it does not entail any specific behavior?
(b) Reducing the specifics to the general brings in all the problems
associated with situation ethics—a general law of love with no
specific meaning.
(c) You can never refute a proposed specific application of a
commandment merely by referring to its general meaning. E.g.,
you can never refute an application of the eighth commandment
to the property tax simply by saying that the commandment
deals with our stewardship before God. To refute a specific
application, you must argue specifically. It is simply not true that
God is concerned only about broad redemptive realities and not
about narrow “details.” (Cf. John Murray’s comments on this.)
b) Therefore, every commandment has both a broad and a narrow meaning:
The eighth commandment does teach that we should not rob God of his
honor; but it also teaches that we should not eat donuts without paying.
3. Summary.
a) The commandments represent ten perspectives on the whole ethical life.
(Cf. our earlier “triangle.” These relations would be pictured as a
decagon, if I could draw one.)
b) Each commandment teaches the whole of our obligation from one
particular point of view.
c) Each commandment also teaches many specific obligations which follow
from the whole (“equal ultimacy of the one and many”).
d) The Larger Catechism can be defended, then, by saying that the
commandments do encompass a great multitude of specifics, and that any
specific commandment can be shown to be an application of any of the
ten. However, I am not enthusiastic about the Cathechism’s method of
118
presentation. It seems to move between breadth and narrowness without
a clearly persuasive principle of organization and derivation.
C. Summary of the Decalogue in Chart Form. (Don’t take this too seriously—JF).
Although each commandment involves all the others, they do differ from one
another in “perspective” as we have indicated. There is a progress from one
commandment to the next that can be summarized in the following scheme. The
rationale for the scheme will be explained in the discussions of the individual
commandments. “I” refers to the first commandment, “II” to the second, etc.
1. Our Obligation to Love the Lord (I-III).
a) Father–heart Worship only the true God (I)—Situational perspective:
b) Son–word Worship him only on the basis of his word (II)—
Normative perspective:
c) Spirit–deed Worship him only through the right use of the word
(III)—Existential Perspective: (The first three commandments manifest a
trinitarian structure: God, the Word, our Spirit-induced response.)
2. Our Obligation to Keep God’s Ordinances (IV-X).
a) Situational perspective: obedience in deed.
(1) Positively.
(a) The creation ordinances of labor, rest, and worship (IV)
(b) The creation ordinance of the family (V).
(2) Negatively.
(a) Vs. contempt for man’s life (VI) (creation ordinances of worship
and family).
(b) Vs. contempt for marriage (VII) (creation ordinance of the
family).
(c) Vs. contempt for property (VIII) (creation ordinance of labor).
b) Normative perspective: obedience in word (IX).
c) Existential perspective: obedience in the heart (X).
D. Biblical Prefaces to the Law.
1. The Presence of God (Exodus 19): At Mount Sinai, when the covenant was
made and Israel was set apart as God’s people, the whole people of God
heard the voice of God directly, without the mediation of prophecy or writing.
This event is unique in redemptive history. [Cf. above, A.2.b.]
a) The phenomena.
(1) Thunder, lightning, Exodus 19:16, 20:18.
(2) Thick cloud, darkness, Exodus 19:16, 20:21; Deuteronomy 4:11.
(3) The trumpet, Exodus 19:16, 20:18: not the ram’s horn (v. 13), but
something else which grows in volume as God comes near.
(4) Smoke and fire, Exodus 19:18: “to the heart of heaven,”
Deuteronomy 4:11. Apparently something enormous, unearthly. The
fire is emphasized, Deuteronomy 4:33, 36, 5:4f.—perhaps
119
reminiscent of Exodus 3:2, or even Genesis 15:17 (cf. Genesis
15:12).
(5) The quake, Exodus 19:18.
(6) The voice itself, Exodus 19:9; Deuteronomy 4:12, 33, 36, 5:23ff.
b) Their purpose (cf. general purposes of miracles, connotations of dunamis,
teras, semeion parallel with Lordship attributes).
(1) Exhibition of divine power: note emphasis on the greatness (Exodus
19:18), the loudness (19:20), the enormity of the fire (Deuteronomy
4:11), the uniqueness of the experience (Deuteronomy 4:32-36), the
revelation of God’s greatness and glory (Deuteronomy 5:24).
(2) Eliciting of fear.
(a) Terror of God’s presence in judgment—Exodus 19:16, 20:18f.;
Deuteronomy 5:5, 25; Hebrews 12:18-21. This is not presented
as the purpose of God in giving the signs, but as the actual
result. Doubtless God intended the result, but the emphasis in
describing the divine intention is on other points; see below.
(b) Sanctifying reverence—Exodus 20:20; Deuteronomy 4:10, cf.
Deuteronomy 4:24.
(3) Instruction, Deuteronomy 4:36, cf. 4:10—closely related to ii.b).
(a) Confirming the mediator, Exodus 19:9, 20:18f.; (cf. “signs of the
apostles”).
(b) Confirming the content of the law, Exodus 20:22ff.,
Deuteronomy 4:10.
(c) Confirming the certainty of God’s mercy and judgment,
Deuteronomy 4:24 and 33 in context.
(d) Confirming the identity of God himself, Deuteronomy 4:36 in
context of 35.
c) Since the New Testament Church is one body with Old Testament Israel,
the assembly at Sinai is part of our own community memory (cf. Exodus
19:6; I Peter 2:9), from which we also ought to take instruction. We
have, however, an even greater memory, a greater vision of God in Christ
(Hebrews 12:18-29), which has a greater, but parallel purpose. Hebrews
reminds us also that “our God is a consuming fire,” 12:29.
2. The Name of the Lord (Exodus 20:1): As God had earlier identified himself to
Moses as “I am” and “Yahweh” (Exodus 3:14f.), so now he identifies himself
to all Israel as the Lord of the covenant.
a) A Personal Revelation.
(1) “Yahweh” is first of all a proper name, the name of a person. The
covenant law, therefore, is not based merely on abstract principles;
ultimately, it is the will of a person. The law reveals him to us by
telling us what pleases and displeases him.
(2) “The Lord thy God”: Israel itself is involved.
120
(a) In effect, Israel is part of God’s own name—God is thy God,
God of Israel. Note the profundity, then, of God’s covenant
identification with this people. God identifies himself with them
and vice-versa. Such love for sinners!
(b) Singular pronouns are used for Israel throughout the Decalogue.
This gives a sense of unity to the people and intimacy to their
relation with God.
(c) The covenant law, therefore, is not an abstract legal document,
but a loving self-communication between the Lord and the
people he has chosen for himself.
b) A Meaningful Revelation: “Yahweh” is not only a proper name, but, like
most near-eastern proper names, it says something about the person
named. The meaning of “Yahweh” is rather difficult to ascertain, but a
survey of the emphases found in contexts where the name is prominent
suggests that the following ideas are important (“Lordship Attributes”):
(1) Control: God rescued Israel from Egypt in such a way that displayed
his control over all things in heaven and earth.
(2) Authority: He speaks in his law the word which must be obeyed
without question, which transcends all other loyalties, which governs
all areas of life.
(3) Presence: He identifies himself with his covenant people, primarily
for blessing, but also for judgment. “I am with you.” [Cf. a., above].
3. The Rule of God (Relation of Blessing and Obedience) (Exodus 20:2, etc.).
a) Blessing Precedes Obedience (priority of sovereign grace).
(1) Emphasis on the making of covenant following divine victory:
Exodus 20:2; Deuteronomy 1:1-5, 4:44-49, 29:1.
(2) Emphasis upon grace as the source of victory: Deuteronomy 4:20,
6:10-12, 7:6-8, 8:17, 9:1-6.
(3) Emphasis on sovereign election: Deuteronomy 7:6-8, 10:14-17.
(4) Since we have been chosen as God’s people, we must obey,
Deuteronomy 27:9ff.
(5) Since God has delivered us and blessed us, we must obey,
Deuteronomy 6:20-25, 10:21-11:7, 8:1-6, 11-18, 29:2-9; Leviticus
19:36f., 20:8, 22:31ff.
(6) God addresses Israel in the singular: emphasizing divine intimacy,
individual responsibility.
Excursus: Does this mean that the law is given only to Israel, since it is based on Israel’s distinctive
election
from among all the nations? No; it means that this particular covenantal formulation of the law is
given only to Israel. The law itself is given to every man in nature an conscience (Romans 1-2),
and the law given through nature and conscience is described as “the work of the law” (Romans
2:15), that is, ordinances agreeing in content with the law given through Moses. It is also clear
that rulers in heathen nations were expected to rule justly, that is, in accord with God’s law. See
Bahnsen, Theonomy, 339-364. The Mosaic Law, then, is a formulation of that law that is known
to all people and which binds all people. It is, however, a particular application of that law to a
very “peculiar” people. It is not easy to sort out what is generally applicable from what applies
121
only to Israel specifically [cf. Part Two, I.D.5-6.]; but it would be wrong to assume that since the
law is a redemptive revelation its demands may not be proclaimed to unbelievers. Quite the
contrary.
b) Blessing Follows Obedience.
(1) If you obey, then you are the people of God. Exodus 19:5.
Interesting and paradoxical contrast with Deuteronomy 27:9ff. The
point is that obedience and salvation are inseparable. You can’t have
either without the other.
(2) Promise of prosperity, victory, to those who obey: Exodus 20:6, 12,
23:22-33; Deuteronomy 5:32f., 6:1-3, 17-19, 8:7-10, 11:10-12,
13:18, Psm. 1. Note NT parallels: Matt. 6:33, Mark 10:29, 1 Cor.
3:21, Eph. 6:1-3, 1 Tim. 4:8. Grace leads to works, which lead to
more blessing.
I. The First Commandment: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
A. Theological Setting.
1. The Positive Focus.
a) WLC 104: What are the duties required in the first commandment?
A. The duties required in the first commandment are, the knowing and
acknowledging of God to be the only true God, and our God; and to worship
and glorify him accordingly, by thinking, meditating, remembering, highly
esteeming, honouring, adoring, choosing, loving, desiring, fearing of him,
believing him, trusting, hoping, delighting, rejoicing in him; being zealous for
him; calling upon him, giving all praise and thanks, and yielding all obedience
and submission to him with the whole man; being careful in all things to please
him, and sorrowful when in any thing he is offended; and walking humbly with
him.
b) Love.
(1) Despite the negative formulation of the commandment, it actually
commands that most positive of Christian virtues, love. [Cf. Part Two
I.D.9; III.C.3.f.].
(a) It comes at the point where the suzerainty treaty would demand
love by the vassal for the suzerain.
(b) Its meaning is synonymous with the covenantal sense of love:
exclusive covenant loyalty.
(2) Relations to context.
(a) Love, therefore, is the grateful response of the vassal to the saving
mercies of the Lord described in the historical prologue: here,
thankfulness for the redemption from Egypt.
(b) This love, in turn, becomes the motive for obeying all the rest of the
law.
(c) It provides a summary of our obligation—cf. Deuteronomy 6:4ff.
(3) New Testament realization: Matthew 10:34ff., 19:16-30, 16:24;
Philippians 3:7f. One of the strongest proofs of the deity of Christ is that
122
he demanded the same absolute loyalty that Jehovah demanded in the
first commandment.
c) Worship: Exclusive loyalty to a god means exclusive worship.
(1) Narrow focus: cultic purity. Sacrifice, prayer, etc., made exclusively to
the Lord.
(2) Broad focus: ethical purity.
(a) Pure worship always involves coming before God with clean hands
and pure heart (Psalm 24:4; cf. Luke 1:74; Acts 24:14; II Timothy
1:3, etc.).
(b) Cultic terminology (‘abad, latreuein, douleuein, leitourgein)
(especially outside the Bible, but inside it as well) for service in
general, whether religious or secular. Thus, it is not inherently
bound to cultic use.
(c) Thus, the language of worship [above; and also the language of
priesthood, sacrifice, temple, holiness, cleansing] is used in
Scripture for ethical purity in general: Matthew 6:24; Romans 12:1;
James 1:27; Hebrews 12:28. Note also the use of these terms in
connection with Paul’s mission: Romans 1:9; Philippians 2:17.
“Worship in the broad sense.”
(d) The exclusiveness of our worship involves exclusive loyalty to
God’s law—this law and no other; cf. discussion of the sufficiency
of Scripture for ethics. Deuteronomy 6:1-9, 10:12-16.
(e) Thus, the first commandment has both a narrow and a broad
meaning [cf. Introduction, B.]. In one sense, all sins are violations
of the first commandment, for all sins are defections from pure
covenant loyalty.
d) Consecration: Covenant loyalty means that God’s people and all their
possessions are to be set apart to him.
(1) Note the many laws in the Pentateuch involving the sanctification of
individuals and things:
(a) Redemption (“sanctification”) of the firstborn, Exodus 13.
(b) Ransom of individuals, Exodus 30:1ff.
(c) Consecration of the Nazirite, Numbers 6.
(d) Consecration of first fruits, Deuteronomy 26.
(2) Note especially those institutions defining covenant membership:
(a) Circumcision, Genesis 17:9ff.; Leviticus 12:3.
(b) Passover, Exodus 12; Numbers 9; Deuteronomy 16.
(c) Sabbath [see below, IV.].
(3) Comments:
(a) Covenant loyalty (love, worship) must take concrete form. One
must not only love God inwardly and seek to obey; rather, he must
confess the Lord openly by identifying himself as belonging to God.
123
(b) Since we are fallen, this consecration involves confession of our
sins and reception of God’s atoning grace.
(c) In confessing the Lord, we also identify ourselves with his people.
There is no such thing as a merely private allegiance to God.
(d) Note also the importance of recognizing ourselves as stewards,
recognizing that God owns all and we only hold in trust.
(e) In the New Testament too, the elements of public confession,
sacraments, identification with God’s people, stewardship are
emphasized.
(f) More broadly, Scripture teaches that our chief end is to glorify God
(see earlier lectures).
2. The Negative Focus.
a) WLC 105: What are the sins forbidden in the first commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the first commandment are, Atheism, in denying or not
having a God; Idolatry, in having or worshipping more gods than one, or any
with or instead of the true God; the not having and avouching him for God and
our God; the omission or neglect of any thing due to him, required in this
commandment; ignorance, forgetfulness, misapprehensions, false opinions,
unworthy and wicked thoughts of him; bold and curious searching into his
secrets; all profaneness, hatred of God; self-love, self-seeking, and all other
inordinate and immoderate setting of our mind, will, or affections upon other
things, and taking them off from him in whole or in part; vain credulity,
unbelief, heresy, misbelief, distrust, despair, incorrigibleness, and insensibleness
under judgments, hardness of heart, pride, presumption, carnal security,
tempting of God; using unlawful means, and trusting in lawful means; carnal
delights and joys; corrupt, blind, and indiscreet zeal; lukewarmness, and
deadness in the things of God; estranging ourselves and apostatizing from God;
praying, or giving any religious worship, to saints, angels, or any other
creatures; all compacts and consulting with the devil, and hearkening to his
suggestions; making men the lords of our faith and conscience; slighting and
despising God and his commands; resisting and grieving of his Spirit, discontent
and impatience at his dispensations, charging him foolishly for the evils he
inflicts on us; and ascribing the praise of any good we either are, have, or can
do, to fortune, idols, ourselves, or any other creature.
b) Why is the law so negative? All the commandments except the fourth and
fifth are framed as prohibitions. (Note, however, strong emphasis on love
and obedience at the end of the second.)
(1) As we have seen, a negative formulation does not rule out positive
applications. Positive or negative form is more a matter of phrasing
than of meaning. But why all the negative phrasing?
(2) The negative focus reflects the reality of sin and temptation. Obedience
to God always involves saying no—to Satan, to the world, to our own
lusts. The negative formulations call our attention to the fact that this is
124
a fallen world, and, at every point, we must be prepared to do battle
with sin.
(3) The very notion of “exclusive” covenant loyalty requires negations for
its exposition. To love God exclusively involves denying that special
love to anyone else. As God’s electing love makes distinctions among
men, so we must distinguish among the gods.
(4) Specifically: the negations call for:
(a) Repentance—turning away from sin to Christ.
(b) Self-denial—taking up our cross and following Christ.
(c) Separation—breaking away from all associations which
compromise our loyalty to him.
(5) Remarkably enough, the New Testament is no less negative in its
emphasis. Cf. the Sermon on the Mount. Even love, the most positive
of Christian virtues, is expounded negatively in I Corinthians 13.
(6) You see how important it is to preach negatively. Many object to this,
finding in any criticism or prohibition a lack of love. But truth must be
proclaimed in contrast with error, good in contrast with evil if it is to
be presented clearly and relevantly to the real needs of people.
c) From what must we separate?
(1) From false gods (“No other gods before [or besides] me”): Moloch,
Baal, Asherah, etc. (Deuteronomy 6:14f., 12:29-32). Cf. the third
temptation of Jesus, Matthew 4:9f.
(2) From giving ultimate devotion to something less than God: Mammonmoney,
(Matt. 6:24), possessions (Luke 12:16-21) [Col. 3:5 says greed
is idolatry], politics (Dan. 2:21), pleasures-entertainment (2 Tim. 3:4),
food (Phil. 3:19), self (Deut. 8:17, Dan. 4:30).
(3) From false ideas of God
(a) Limiting him to a narrowly religious sphere.
(b) Supposing that our works might gain his favor.
(c) Sentimentalist religion: a god who does not judge.
(d) Pluralism: God as one of many ways to heaven.
(e) Neo-paganism: mystical identity between God and the self.
(f) Extreme feminism: the creation of new, female images of God.
(g) Practical or theoretical deism.
(h) Process and open theisms.
(4) From false prophets and religious figures: Deuteronomy 13, 18;
Exodus 22:18.
(5) From false religious practices: divination, human sacrifice, petty
superstitions: Deuteronomy 18:9-14; Leviticus 18:21, 19:26, 31, 20:6,
27.
(6) From those who practice false worship, Exodus 12:15, 23:25-33;
Leviticus 20:1-6; Deuteronomy 21, 13:6ff.; Ezra 4:1-3; Deuteronomy
125
7:16-26, 23:3-8, 25:17ff., 27:2-7; cf. Exodus 34, 23:31ff.;
Deuteronomy 7:1-4.
(7) From uncleanness: Numbers 19; Deuteronomy 23, etc.
(a) Ceremonial
(b) Ethical, II Corinthians 7:1; cf. metaphorical senses of “idolatry,”
Colossians 3:5; Ephesians 5:5; I John 5:21; Mark 6:24; Luke 6:9ff.
(8) From any compromise with false religion, II Kings 5:18; Joshua 23:7;
Ezra 4:1-3; Exodus 23:24, 34:13; Numbers 23:52; Deuteronomy
12:1ff., 16:21.
B. Problem Areas.
1. The Occult.
a) The problem.
(1) Contemporary devotion to the occult goes back to the pre-Christian
period of western history. Shows the incompleteness of the
evangelization of the west.
(2) Even professing Christians often dabble in the occult on the side, as a
kind of supplement to an inadequate Christianity, or out of sinful
dissatisfaction with the simplicity of the gospel.
(3) Petty superstitions: aversion to walking under ladders, etc.
(4) Then, there are those who investigate the occult in a quasi-scientific
way—not out of any obvious religious commitment, but seeking to
further their knowledge. E.g.: is there a connection between the
positions of the stars and the events of human history?
b) Biblical principles.
(1) Scripture forbids worship of anything other than the one true God [A.,
above]. This includes worship both in the narrowly cultic and in the
more broadly ethical senses. False gods are not to be prayed to, bowed
down to, or obeyed as ethical authorities.
(2) God forbids “turning to” or “hearkening to” wizards, diviners,
Leviticus 19:31, 20:6, 27; Deuteronomy 18:9-14.
(a) The practices listed in Deuteronomy 18:9ff. are somewhat obscure,
but are clearly manifestations of the false religions.
(b) The main contrast in Deuteronomy 18 is between “hearkening”
(obedient hearing) to the false religions (verse 14) and
“hearkening” to the words of the true prophet (15, 19).
(c) Thus, the authentic word of the Lord is the only, the sufficient
ultimate authority for ethics. Cf. earlier discussion of the sufficiency
of Scripture for ethics.
(d) The passages do not teach that we must ignore the wizards and
diviners; indeed, it was necessary for God’s people to know what
these people were saying in order to enact the proper judicial
sentence.
126
(e) Nor do these passages deny to the wizards all knowledge of truth.
They know the truth in the same (paradoxical!) way that all
unbelievers do (Romans 1), and it is therefore not impossible that
we might occasionally learn from them. But we are not to hearken
to them as to God. They must not be allowed, either in theory or in
practice, to become our ultimate authority or to function as
coordinate with or supplementary to Scripture.
(f) Petty superstitions: the problem is a religious fear, with no basis in
divine revelation.
(3) False religions have no power over the believer but by God’s decree.
(a) Cf. earlier discussion of I Corinthians 8-10. No idol is anything in
this world. We may resist even the devil himself, and he will flee
(James 4:7).
(b) God may permit Satan to afflict us (Job, etc.), but will not allow
him to take us from the hand of Christ.
(c) Therefore, we need not fear that we will be hurt through mere
association with the occult—e.g., through talking to a Satanist,
reading a horoscope, studying th history of numerology, etc.
(i) There is nothing wrong with satisfying curiosity about such
matters. Occult religions are no different, really, from other
false religions, and we generally see no problem in reading the
Koran or the Book of Mormon. [Cf. ii.d), above].
(ii) I am not recommending that anyone saturate his mind with false
religious propaganda. Harm can be done in that way. In that
respect, however, there is no difference between occult
literature and mindless TV show.
(4) There is no biblical objection against a Christian scientific study of
occult claims, insofar as those claims do not conflict with Scripture.
(a) Unbelievers do know truth in a sense and up to a point [Romans 1;
ii.e) above]
(b) Unbelievers do make discoveries which a Christian scholar must
take account of, though he must reject the religious presuppositions
of the discoverers.
(c) Sometimes, these discoveries are deeply embedded in the context
of a false religious practice.
(i) A witch doctor using an herb which turns out to have real
medical value.
(ii) Acupuncture, techniques for relaxation and self-defense—often
very difficult to separate from Eastern religious practice, but
showing some insight.
(iii) Ancient Greek beliefs about the spherical shape of the earth,
mainly stemming from mythological and philosophical
speculation about the perfection of the spherical form.
127
(iv) Astrology: we must reject astral determinism and the idea that
life is to be governed by the stars. Yet, the hypothesis, e.g., that
personality is influenced by the time of year at which one is
born must not be dismissed simply because it is taught by a false
religion.
(v) We may appreciate the music and art which comes out of false
religious orientations, even while opposing the content
expressed.
(vi) Clairvoyance? I have an open mind (as Geesink, Schilder), but
would reject any religious teaching (as Edgar Cayce) based on
that alone.
2. Religious Pluralism (Douma)
a) Are there many ways to heaven? No. The issue is Christ.
(1) His unique nature, Matt. 16:13-17, 22:42, John 1:1, 3, 14, 10:30, Rom.
9:5.
(2) Unique in making the Father known, John 1:18.
(3) Unique as the way to the Father, John 14:6, Acts 4:12.
b) Otherwise, living without God, Acts 14:15-16, 1 Cor. 1:21, 2:10-16, Gal.
4:8, Eph. 2:12, 4:18, 20.
c) Does not require any aversion or disrespect to non-Christians. We call them
to liberation from the angry gods of paganism, superstition, etc. The
secularization of the world encourages the development of science and
technology. But technology can become an idol too.
3. Secret Societies (Masons, Odd Fellows, Rosicrucians, etc.).
a) The situation.
(1) Membership in such societies has been common among professing
Christians, especially in American Presbyterianism. It is often very
difficult to persuade people that there is anything wrong with them.
(2) Many reformed bodies, however, have sharply opposed membership in
such organizations: the U.P. Church of North America; the R.P.N.A.,
the C.R.C., the O.P.C. The R.C.A. refused to take such a stand.
(3) Even those bodies which do oppose such organizations, however, have
not been fully consistent with their positions. In the OPC, some ruling
elders have been Masons in recent years.
b) The problems.
(1) The oath of secrecy: does Scripture permit us (as such organizations
sometimes require) to pledge secrecy in advance of knowing what is to
be kept secret?
(2) The bond of brotherhood: Masons are expected to help other Masons
before anyone else; the brotherhood of Masonry takes precedence over
other relationships. But Scripture calls Christians to give their most
profound loyalty to the body of Christ. Galatians 6:10.
128
(3) The religious rites of Masonry: may a Christian join in prayer, reading
of Scripture, religious ceremonies which are not being carried on in the
name of Christ, in which all worshippers are invited to pray to their
own gods?
(4) The non-Christian character of Masonic theology.
(a) Claim to have found the essence of all religion, of which
Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. are only forms.
(b) God is father to all, apart from Christ.
(c) Scripture references distorted, taken out of context. “The stone
which the builders rejected” referred to the Masonic order.
(d) Salvation available through all religions.
(e) Morality based on nature, not Scripture; Scriptural law not
obligatory.
c) The pro-Masonic response:
(1) A Christian may use Masonry to further God’s purposes in common
grace. It is useful to encourage false religions and “natural morality”
since God uses these to restrain sin in the world.
(2) Reply: God does use such religions and moralities; In fact, he uses evil
itself to further his purposes. But he does not, thereby, give his
approval to evil or to false worship. Further, Scripture never calls on
believers to give any encouragement to false worship and doctrine;
quite the contrary.
4. Secular Schools, Labor Unions, etc.
a) The problem.
(1) These organizations are not cultic or explicitly religious in the sense
that those discussed earlier are. Yet, we have seen that the first
commandment has a broad as well as a narrow focus.
(2) Many such organizations set forth ideologies (Marxism, secular
humanism) inconsistent with Christianity, and they limit the freedom of
their members to express and apply their Christian faith.
b) Response.
(1) As we noted in earlier discussions, mere association with false religions
is not idolatry; else, we would have to withdraw from the world. The
mere hearing of false doctrine through involvement with such
organizations does not constitute sin. I Corinthians 5:9f.
(2) Nor does Scripture forbid all support to such organizations. Jesus
advocated paying taxes to Caesar, even though the Roman government
was idolatrous. Paul permitted Christians to purchase food from
idolatrous vendors, even when that food had been offered to idols.
Therefore, it could hardly be wrong to pay union dues to a Marxist
union in return for various services, or to pay tuition at a humanist
university.
129
(3) It would be sinful for us to adopt non-Christian ideas or practices as
part of our involvement with such organizations, either as a condition
of membership or because we allow ourselves to be persuaded. That
would be “hearkening” unto false teaching.
(4) There is, of course, always a danger in exposing ourselves to
temptation. Let him who stands take heed lest he fall. It is always
dangerous t expose yourself to false teaching; unless you have a good
reason for doing it, and are well grounded in the faith, don’t do it.
(a) Scripture tells us to focus our attentions on things that are pure,
true, honorable, etc. (Philippians 4:8). This does not mean that we
are to be ignorant of evil; Paul was not. But it does mean that we
ought not to saturate our minds with spiritual poison.
(b) This consideration is a serious one when we consider the possibility
of sending young children to public schools.
(i) In general, I recommend the use of Christian schools or home
schools, especially for the youngest children.
(ii) However, there are places where Christian schools are either
non-existent or inadequate educationally or foster seriously
false notions of Christianity (such as the notion that Christians
never associate with non-Christians). Here, then, there are
problems on both sides, and the alternatives must be weighed
carefully in each particular case. The parents will be responsible
for the outcome. Ultimately, they are the educators of their
children.
(iii) And it is important to prepare children to live in the real world,
not in a Christian ghetto. For most of us that will mean at some
time receiving education from unbelievers. That may occur in
high school, college, grad school, vocational training, etc.
Christian parents need to decide responsibly at what point and
to what degree their children should be exposed to such
education.
5. Apostate Churches.
a) Scripture does not directly address the question of the apostate church.
(1) It might be argued that Old Covenant Israel had become apostate by
rejecting Christ. Still, Scripture does not assume that one could simply
leave Israel at his own discretion. The Jews were bound to Israel by
birth, circumcision, priesthood, temple; there was no alternative. Only
the making of a New Covenant by divine initiative could warrant a
separation of the Christian church from the Old Covenant people of
God. No such divine provision exists to free us from contemporary
church organizations.
(2) In the New Testament, the possibility of an apostate church is not
considered. It is assumed, in fact, that apostates will demonstrate their
130
apostasy by leaving the church, I John 2:19, or else will be disciplined
by the church (I Corinthians 5:9-13).
b) However, Scripture does not guarantee that any particular church
organization will remain faithful until the return of Christ, anymore than it
guaranteed the perpetual faithfulness of Old Testament Israel.
c) It cannot be argued that Christians are bound to visible church
organizations in the same way that Israel was bound to the temple and the
Aaronic priesthood. Christ is our temple, our one mediator.
d) Further, it is doubtful that any modern denomination can even claim the
title “church” on a New Testament basis. In the New Testament, “church”
is applied to local assemblies, to city churches, to the church universal, but
not to anything like a modern denomination. The “denomination” is an
anomaly; we must treat it as a church for practical purposes, since it is the
only recognized visible form of the church beyond the local unit; however,
in a deeper sense, it is only a temporary makeshift, a tent in which we live
while awaiting and working toward the completion of our house—the
restoration of all Christians to one visible church. Thus, to leave one
denomination and enter another is not the same thing as schism from the
New Testament church.
e) Still, division among brethren is not to be taken lightly, for division tends
to produce hurt, lessening of fellowship, weakening of the whole body of
Christ.
f) Separation is warranted:
(1) When a particular organization loses any of the defining marks of the
church (classically formulated as the preaching of the word, the right
administration of the sacraments, discipline).
(2) When membership in such an organization requires commission of sin:
in 1936, many left the Presbyterian Church USA on the ground that
they were being required to support false teaching as a condition of
membership.
g) While separation is required only on the above grounds, we cannot argue
that it is forbidden in every other instance. One might leave a church or
denomination to join another for many reasons—e.g., to find greater
opportunity for developing and using one’s gifts. It is important, however,
that wherever enmity or strife play a role in such a division, that the
division not be allowed to prevent reconciliation.
h) Be careful of oversimplifying the questions involved here. There are many
complications in particular cases. For instance, one might argue that it is
sinful for a particular evangelical congregation to belong to a liberal
denomination, but not for an individual evangelical to belong to that
congregation. Apostasy of a denomination does not necessarily imply the
apostasy of every congregation therein, even though it might imply some
lesser sins in those congregations.
131
II. The Second Commandment: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any
likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in
the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them:
for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the
children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And showing mercy
unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
WLC, 108: What are the duties required in the second commandment?
The duties required in the second commandment are, the receiving, observing, and
keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God hath
instituted in his word; particularly prayer and thanksgiving in the name of Christ; the
reading, preaching, and hearing of the word; the administration and receiving of the
sacraments; church government and discipline; the ministry and maintenance thereof;
religious fasting; swearing by the name of God, and vowing unto him; as also the
disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship; and, according to each one’s place
and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.
109: What are the sins forbidden in the second commandment?
The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counselling,
commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God
himself; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either
inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature
whatsoever; all worshipping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation
of
feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious
devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented
and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of
antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever; simony;
sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances
which God has appointed.
A. Main Thrust (narrow focus):
Forbids making images for the purpose of bowing to them—i.e., doing homage to
them as representations of deity, and / or as media through which God draws near.
1. Context of worship.
a) The formulations in Exodus and Deuteronomy seem at first reading to
forbid all image-making, i.e., all art.
b) Other considerations, however, counteract this first impression:
(1) Scripture never suggests that there is anything wrong with art in itself,
except possibly in these passages.
(2) Scripture not only permits, but warrants the use of ornamentation and
in particular the making of pictures—of cherubim, bells, pomegranates,
Exodus 25-28; note especially 25:18ff., 28:33ff., chapters 35-39; cf.
I Kings 6:14-36, 10:19ff. Cf. also Numbers 21:8, Ezekiel 41:17-20.
(3) The brass serpent was ordained by God to heal the people as they
looked toward it (Num. 21:6-9), This was not idolatry. But the people
132
later made idolatrous use of it (2 Kings 18:4), and God was then
pleased with its destruction.
(4) Use of the Hebrew terms allows for both idolatrous and non-idolatrous
use of the same item matz-tze-bah, pillar, designates idols in some
contexts (Exodus 23:24, 34:13; Leviticus 26:1; Deuteronomy 7:5, etc.)
but is elsewhere used in a good sense (Genesis 28:18, 22, 31:13, 45ff.,
35:14, 20). The resultant meaning is that a pillar can have either an
idolatrous or non-idolatrous function—that the erection of the pillar is
neither right nor wrong in itself. It is the use, not the object itself, with
which the commandment is concerned.
(5) Pesel, graven image, is always used in a bad sense, as an object used
for idolatrous purposes. As I see it, it denotes objects used in idolatry,
not art objects as such.
(6) Temunah, likeness, is always used in a bad sense when referring to
likenesses of created things, thus similar to pesel. Interestingly,
however, it can also be used to refer to a likeness of God, Numbers
12:8, Psalm 17:15, not al all unfavorably.
c) Positively, the context is one of religious worship (not only public, but
private, Deuteronomy 27:15).
2. Representations of deity.
a) The commandment does not forbid all religious use of images, for such
images were used in the tabernacle and temple worship. [Cf. passages
under 1.b.ii., above].
b) Specifically, it forbids the use of images as representations of deity.
(1) It forbids “molten gods,” Exodus 20:22f., 24:17; Leviticus 19:4.
(2) It forbids erecting images, pillars, etc., for the purpose of bowing down
to them, Leviticus 26:1. In effect, the second sentence of the
commandment in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 gives the purpose for
which the making of images is forbidden.
3. Representations of the true God.
a) Obviously, the second commandment forbids making images of false gods.
In that respect, however, it is redundant, since all worship of false gods is
condemned already in the first commandment.
b) At crucial points, the language of the commandment is invoked specifically
against the worship of Jehovah by images.
(1) Deuteronomy 4:15ff.: The commandment is warranted by the fact that
Israel saw no form at Sinai, where the true God was manifested.
(2) Exodus 32:1-6: The golden calf was intended to be an image of
Jehovah.
(a) Verse 4: “These are thy gods (elohim),” with plural pronoun and
verb. But there is one calf. The verse as a whole is a paraphrase of
Exodus 20:2.
133
(b) Verse 5: Following the making of the calf and the altar, Aaron
announces a feast of Jehovah, which would make no sense if he and
Israel had determined to worship other gods.
(c) Verse 6: The next day they offered burnt-offerings and peaceofferings,
best understood as those required by the true God.
(3) I Kings 12:28ff.: The calves made by Jeroboam were intended to
represent Jehovah.
(a) Note verse 28, like Exodus 32:4, a reference to Exodus 20:2.
(b) The people are condemned initially, not for worshipping a false
god, but for worshipping in a way not ordained by God. But in 1
Kings 14:9, Jeroboam’s calves are called “other gods,” indicating
the unity between the second commandment and the first. To
worship Yahweh by an image is to worship another god.
(c) Ahab (1 Kings 16:31) went from violating the second
commandment to violating the first, worshipping Baal.
(4) Compare Micah, Judg. 17:2, 18:30, who also worshipped Yahweh
by an image.
4. Pagan Sacramentalism.
a) “Bowing down to wood and stone” does not necessarily mean that the
wood and stone are considered divine. Image-worship, even within
paganism, is generally more sophisticated than that. The wood and stone
may receive homage, not because they are themselves divine, but because
they are media through which the god draws near to the people and the
people to him.
b) Especially, the image represents a conduit of power from the god to the
worshipper (victory, fertility, etc.).
c) Thus, the commandment proscribes, not only the crude belief in the deity
of material objects, but also the more refined sacramentalism described
above.
B. Relationship to the First Commandment.
1. In general, it can be said that the first commandment deals with the object of
worship, while the second deals with the way in which worship is to be carried
on. Cf. the two meanings of “idolatry”—either worshipping a false god or
worshipping by means of an image. Cf. Deut. 12:4-5, 31.
2. The first commandment focuses on the heart-attitude, therefore, and the
second focuses on the external fruit of that attitude. Cf. the general biblical
relation between faith and works or between love and obedience, both of
course, products of redemption.
3. The two involve one another. To worship God contrary to his will is in effect
to worship a false god—our own imagination. And to worship a false god is to
respond disobediently to the revelation of the true God. 1 Kings 14:9.
4. The first commandment, objectively, focuses on the uniqueness of the true
God; the second focuses on the Son of God, as the exclusive revelation of the
Father—[see C.3.c., below].
134
5. The curse and blessing pertains to both the first two commandments, [cf.
C.4.a., below]
6. The number-problem.
a) Augustine regarded our first two commandments as one commandment
and divided our tenth commandment into two. In this, he is followed by the
Roman Catholic and Lutheran traditions.
(1) Division of the tenth into two commandments is implausible.
(2) Union of the first two commandments makes some sense: both
commandments dealing with worship, and the second concludes with a
reference to God’s jealousy and a curse-blessing formula which on any
numbering system may be seen as sanctioning both of our first two
commandments. Other evidence, however, points in the other direction.
Historically, the uniting of these commandments has been linked with a
lax attitude toward the use of images, the prohibition of images being
in effect “buried” in the middle of one commandment. That is a danger,
though the problem is more basically one of human sin than of the
proper numbering system.
b) The Jews from an early period regarded the historical prologue (Exodus
20:2) as the first commandment, and then united our first two
commandments as the second. The prologue, however, cannot be plausibly
regarded as a commandment, especially in the light of our current
knowledge of the covenant structure. One could argue that the prologue
could be seen as dabar, word. (The ten are grouped together as debarim in
Ex. 34:28 and elsewhere.) But in such contexts, dabar seems virtually
equivalent to mitzvah—cf. especially the references in Esther.
C. Grounds for the Commandment.
1. God’s sovereign invisibility, Deuteronomy 4:12, 15ff.
a) The invisibility of God is a somewhat paradoxical doctrine in Scripture.
(1) On the one hand, it is stated plainly and often, Ex. 33:20, 23, Romans
1:20; John 1:18; Colossians 1:15; I Timothy 1:17, 6:16.
(2) On the other hand, God does make himself seen. Theophany plays an
important role in the history of redemption. Cf. Genesis 32:24ff.;
Exodus 33:18-23; Numbers 12:8 (temunah, used in second
commandment); Isaiah 6. Cf. man and Christ as “image” [below, 2.],
Kline on the “glory cloud”.
(3) We should distinguish between
(a) God’s essential invisibility, John 1:18, Rom. 1:20, Col. 1:15, 1 Tim.
1:17, 6:16.
(b) God hiding himself because of man’s sin, lest divine judgment break
out against man, Ex. 19:24, 33:20, 23. In these passages God can
be seen, by theophany. But God restricts man’s access to the
theophany. This is what I call below God’s “redemptive-historical
invisibility.”
135
(4) Note paradoxical formulations, II Corinthians 4:18; Hebrews 11:27;
John 14:7ff.
(5) Much of the difficulty in applying the second commandment arises
because of this paradox: how do we do justice to God’s invisibility
without compromising what Scripture teaches about his visibility?
b) Coordination of the biblical teaching, especially as applied to the second
commandment:
(1) Theophanies typically increase our awareness of God’s
incomprehensibility and transcendence.
(a) Isaiah, who saw the Lord, presents some of the strongest teaching
against idolatry. He saw the Lord “high and lifted up” (6:1), from
whom even the seraphim covered their faces (6:2). Through him,
God says, “to whom will you liken me?”, 40:25.
(b) Ezekiel (1:28) and John (Revelation 1:17) fell on their faces in
response to the visions. Isaiah was overcome by his sin (6:5).
(c) The mentality of idolatry is quite opposite to this. The idolater
produces an image to reduce the distinction between creator and
creature, between Lord and sinner. He wants to have a more direct
link to God on his own terms, more immediate access to use God’s
power.
(2) Theophanies are given by God—the result of God’s sovereign
initiative.The “essential invisibility” of God means that God is not
limited to any visible form or to any particular visible form. God
himself decides whether and when and how he will manifest himself
visibly. Invisibility is a function of sovereignty.
(3) Deuteronomy 4 is not, however, primarily concerned with God’s
“essential” invisibility, but with his “redemptive-historical” invisibility.
(a) Idols are prohibited, not because God is invisible in a general sense,
but because there was no temunah (form) seen at Mount Sinai at
the giving of the law (f:12, 15).
(b) God’s temunah is seen on other occasions—Numbers 12:8; Psalm
17:15; however at this particular point in redemptive history, it was
concealed from the nation as a whole.
(c) Thus, the point is not only that God is sovereign over his visible
manifestations [above, ii.], but also that, in fact, God sovereignly
determined not to make himself visible in the Sinai revelation.
(d) The significance of this can be seen from a broader redemptivehistorical
perspective. The “seeing” of God is primarily an
eschatological concept in Scripture. It is at the last day that “every
eye shall see him” and that, in a particular way, the “pure in heart”
will “see God” (Matthew 5:8). The eschaton, however, has its
anticipations in history: in theophany, in Christ. The present
kingdom of Christ is “semi-eschatological”—the kingdom already
and not-yet.
136
(i) The Old Covenant was primarily a time, therefore, of divine
invisibility. God willed to be invisible in a special way to
indicate the futurity of the kingdom in unequivocal terms. The
theophanies underscored this emphasis by presenting the people
with a contrast between their present kingdom and the kingdom
to come.
(ii) The New Covenant is a time of paradox. The Father has been
seen in the Son—touched, handled, etc. Yet, now, Christ has
ascended. Though fully visible, he is not on earth as he was and
as he will be. Thus, the more paradoxical assertions (found even
in the Old Testament) are stressed especially in the New
Testament—II Corinthians 4:18; Hebrews 11:27. Until the
parousia, we walk by faith, not by sight: Hebrews 11:1, 13,
II Corinthians 5:7; Romans 8:24. But the fact that Jesus has
been seen makes all the difference. That “has been” can even be
put in the present tense, Hebrews 2:9.
(4) During this redemptive-historical period, revelation is normally by
word rather than by vision, theophany, image.
(a) In Exodus 20:22-23, the prohibition of images is connected with
the fact that God spoke with Israel from heaven. (Interestingly,
ra`ah is used: Israel saw that God spoke from heaven.) The point
seems to be that use of images would hinder Israel’s memory of
and / or obedience to the divine voice which defined the covenant
terms.
(b) In Deuteronomy 4:12, “form” is repeatedly and emphatically
contrasted with “voice”. At Sinai, Israel saw no form, but did hear
the voice—the statutes and ordinances.
(c) In general, theophanies are given for the sake of hearing rather than
contemplation. The focus is on the words spoken, rather than on
the shapes perceived. The latter only reinforce the former. The
prophet, typically, does not describe the vision in great detail, but
records the words given him to speak. Even in Ezekiel, where
visions are described in greater detail than usual, note the emphatic
transition from vision to word in 1:28-2:1f. The prophet does not
gaze contemplatively at the vision; rather he falls down as though
dead. Then, he hears the voice. Cf. Revelation 1:17-2:1.
(d) When Philip asks to see God, Jesus points to himself (John 14:9),
specifically, his words (10). (His works are introduced also; I take
it, however, that, in this context, they are introduced primarily as
attestations to Jesus’ words.)
(e) The image of the cherubim in the temple is clearly subordinate to
the presence of the law in the ark.
(f) This principle, of course, is not absolute. As we have seen, there
are theophanies, and there are images (Christ and man) during the
137
time before the parousia. There is also the visible revelation of God
in the creation. However, the following points are beyond question:
(i) Between the fall and the parousia, visions and theophanies are
given to few; but the word of God is available to all. Even the
Gentiles have the work of the law written on their heart.
(ii) God calls us to obey his word, not to expect theophany.
Scripture is sufficient, as we argued in Part II.
(iii) Our time is predominantly a time of walking by faith rather than
by sight, II Corinthians 5:7; Romans 8:24; Hebrews 11:1, 13.
(5) In expositions of the second commandment, it is sometimes said that
since God is infinite, invisible, and immaterial, he cannot be pictured,
and, thus, that any image is in effect a lie. This point contains some
truth, but requires modification.
(a) Although the Scriptures do refer to God’s invisibility in this
connection, they also do justice to the ways in which God makes
himself visible, and the sense in which his current invisibility is
redemptively-historically conditioned [above].
(b) Even if God never took on visible form, even if he chose always to
remain invisible, it could not be said, for that reason, that God
cannot be pictured.
(i) Christ and man are God’s “images,” pictures of God, even in
their physical characteristics. (Cf. Course in Doctrine of Man,
Kline’s articles.)
(ii) A picture is never identical with the thing pictured; nor does it
claim to reproduce exhaustively the characteristics of the thing
pictured (which would be the same). Your daughter does not
feel like Kodak paper! “Picturing” is possible even when there
are great differences between the picture and the thing pictured.
(iii) It is possible to “picture” something invisible—by producing
something visible which corresponds to it and reminds us of it:
pictures of atoms, man’s arm as picture of God’s strength, etc.
(iv) In one sense, anything can be a picture of anything if we are
trained to interpret the picture in a way which leads us to the
thing pictured. “Picturing” is based not only in the
characteristics of the picture and the thing pictured, but also in
the social conventions which set the rules for “representing”
and the abilities of individuals to see the applications of those
rules. Cf. discussion of “seeing as” in Part Two.
(c) But isn’t God incomprehensible and therefore, incomparable (Isaiah
40:18-26, 46:5)? And doesn’t incomparability preclude picturing?
(i) Incomparability is a paradoxical notion, like invisibility. God is
incomparable, but Scripture is constantly comparing him with
creation—negatively, of course (God is not like . . . .) but also
positively (God is a rock, a lion, a king, etc.). In one sense,
138
everything Scripture (and we) say about God is based on
comparison.
(ii) The point in Isaiah 40, etc., is that alongside all the
comparabilities between God and creation, there is a
fundamental incomparability, namely, the creator / creature
distinction itself. It is as important to note how God is unlike
the world as to note how he is like it (even if, paradoxically,
even our language of unlikeness presupposes likeness). Isaiah
teaches that idolatry obscures the creator / creature distinction.
The idolater ignores the obvious (and comical!) differences
between his weak, beggarly idols and the eternal God.
(iii) Bowing down before an idol necessarily involves such
confusion. One bows before an idol because he thinks the idol,
as opposed to the ordinary creation, represents the distinctive
character of God. To him, it represents, not so much the
likeness between creator and creature, as the distinction
between creator and creature. But, of course, he is deluded.
The idol is wholly inadequate to represent that distinction.
(d) Conclusion: God can be pictured, though of course not
exhaustively. However, idols are never adequate pictures of God,
since their makers seek to minimize the creator / creature
distinction. They are lies. The deception, however, has little to do
with God’s invisibility as such. There is no deception in
representing the invisible by the visible, as long as necessary
distinctions are made. The deceptiveness of idolatry, then, is better
considered under the following heading:
2. God as the living God.
a) Idols cannot see, hear, smell, or [especially in the light of 1.b.iv. above]
speak: Deuteronomy 4:28; Psalm 115:5-8; 135:15-18; Habakkuk 2:18f.;
Isaiah 46:7; Jeremiah 10:5; I Corinthians 12:2; Isaiah 40-48.
b) Idols are made of wood, stone, gold, silver: Deuteronomy 4:28, 28:36, 64,
29:17, Exodus 20:23; Isaiah 40:18ff., etc.
c) Idols, therefore, mislead us about the most distinctive characteristics of
God, as opposed to those of the false gods—his absoluteness [cf. 1. above]
and his personality. It is not that a person cannot be pictured by an
inanimate medium; rather, the point is that the use of idols distracts us
from those characteristics of God which we should especially be
concentrating on. Worse, people make idols to avoid being confronted
with the absolute personality of the true and living God.
3. Respect for the structure of creation.
a) Note in Exodus 20 that all of creation is described: images are prohibited
of anything in heaven, earth, or sea. This three-layer description is a
common Scriptural way of describing the whole creation, hearkening back
to Genesis 1:26. The point, therefore, is that worship is to be focused on
the creator, as opposed to anything in creation.
139
(1) Recall the statement of Romans 1:25 that idolatry involves
“worshipping and serving the creature rather than the creator.”
(2) Recall 2.b. above, which reproaches idols for the base materials of
which they are made.
b) The dignity of man himself is at stake, also.
(1) In Genesis 1:26f., to which allusion is made in the second
commandment, man himself is the image of God. For man to bow
down to an idol is not only to dishonor God, but also to dishonor his
image in us. How can God’s image bow before something less than
himself, something over which he has dominion? Even angels refuse
human worship.
(2) Idols, far from conveying divine power, are far weaker even than men.
Note the satire on idolatry in Isaiah 40-48 focusing on the weakness of
the idols. Cf. Galatians 4:9.
(3) Over and over again, idols are described as human creations, the work
of men’s hands, Exodus 20:4; Deuteronomy 4:28; Acts 7:41. Note
emphasis on the ingenuity of the human idol-maker, finding ways to
keep his god from falling over, etc.: Isaiah 40:18ff., 44:12ff. Idols are
not only subject to us in the creation order [i., ii.], they are our
products. Our very creativity, reflecting God’s ultimate creativity, is
being prostituted.
(4) Those who make idols destroy themselves. The makers of idols shall be
“like unto them” (Psalm 115:7, 135:18), i.e., dead.
(5) In redemption, we are renewed in the image of Christ. If it is
blasphemy for God’s image to bow before an idol, it is surely
blasphemous for one renewed in the image of Christ to do it.
c) Christ himself is the image of God in a distinctive sense. In redemption, he
is the image through whom our relation to God is mediated. But the
idolater claims precisely that his creation performs the function of
mediation. Thus, he denies the exclusiveness of Christ’s redemptive work.
It may be said that the second commandment refers to Christ—that it
summons us to worship exclusively in his name. [Note 1.b.iv. above on the
redemptive-historical thrust of this commandment.]
4. God’s covenant jealousy, Exodus 20:5ff., Deuteronomy 4:24, 5:9f. Cf.
Hebrews 12:29 which invokes the language of Deuteronomy 4:24 in the
context of New Covenant worship.
a) The reference to jealousy and covenant sanctions probably refers to both of
the first two commandments, rather than just the second. Jealousy is
frequently invoked as a basis for the prohibition of the first commandment:
Exodus 34:14; Deuteronomy 6:13-15.
b) Jealousy is a covenantal concept: God will not tolerate any deviation from
the exclusiveness of our covenant loyalty to him. Deuteronomy 4:23f.
(1) God’s name is jealous, Exodus 34:14. His covenant name binds him to
his people and thus the people to him.
140
(2) In our discussion of the seventh commandment, we shall note the
frequent parallels drawn between idolatry and adultery. Idolatry is
essentially violation of our marriage vow, our covenant with God.
God’s jealousy is the jealousy of a husband toward an unfaithful wife.
The divine jealousy, therefore, begins with his covenant love. His anger
burns against those who have offended that love.
(3) In Exodus 34:14, God’s jealousy forbids the making of covenants with
the inhabitants of the land.
(4) Note the covenantal language of II Kings 21:7f.; Ezekiel 8 describing
idolatry in the place where God chose to set his name. Ezekiel 8:3
describes “the image” “which provokes to jealousy,” i.e., the image in
the temple itself.
c) The covenant jealousy is symbolized by “consuming fire.”
(1) Though Israel did not see the “form” of God at Mount Sinai, they did
see a remarkable visual display: lightnings, a thick cloud, smoke. The
picture is one of a great fire.
(2) The fire is threatening. The people may not go up the mountain
(Exodus 19:22) “lest Jehovah break forth upon them.” The wrath of
God is like a flame which reaches out to consume.
(3) Significantly, both man and beast are kept from the mountain, 19:13;
Hebrews 12:20. Violators will be stoned. The distinction between
creator and fallen creation is strictly maintained. [Cf. above, 3.]
(4) Scripture reminds us of the fire when we are tempted to covenant
unfaithfulness, Deuteronomy 4:24; Hebrews 12:29.
d) Relations among the various grounds: God’s jealousy guards the structure
of creation—his own sovereign authority and distinctive nature as well as
that of Christ and man, his created image. Since creation itself is structured
covenantally, this is to be expected. His jealousy maintains that structure
against all apparent threats. Hence:
D. Sanctions.
1. The curse: “visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children and upon the
third and fourth generation of them that hate me.”
a) Does this mean that children are punished for their fathers’ sins, contrary
to Ezekiel 18:14-17?
(1) The passage presupposes that the children are as guilty as the fathers.
Leson’ay = in relation to those who hate me. By its position, the word
refers both to the fathers and to the children.
(2) The children do, therefore, suffer for their own sins. In a sense,
however, they also suffer for their fathers’ sins. Not that they bear the
penalty deserved by their fathers; certainly not that the fathers go free.
But the iniquity of the fathers begins a process whereby the wrath of
God is stored up, to be released perhaps generations later in terrible
fury. Cf. Leviticus 26:39; 2 Kings 17:7-23, Isaiah 65:7; Amos 7:17;
Jeremiah 16:11ff.; Daniel 9:16; Romans 1:24ff. (on the increase of sin
141
from one generation to the next). In this sense, the punishment of the
children for the fathers’ sins is not denied by Ezekiel 18:14-17. Cf. also
Matthew 23:29-33. The sins of the fathers corrupt the environment, the
family and social life of the people, setting the scene for judgment.
(3) Scripture teaches that there is a remnant that escapes the judgment
upon the wicked generation. Therefore, there is nothing fatalistic here.
The converts at Pentecost heeded the apostolic injunction to “save
yourselves from this crooked generation” (Acts 2:40), and they were
saved. By God’s grace, we can, amazingly enough, leave one
generation and join another, the family of God! It is possible, however,
even for members of the elect remnant to lose their earthly lives in
God’s historical judgments.
(4) Our solidarity with Adam is a special case. As he is our representative,
we are directly guilty of his sin (Romans 5, cf. course in Doctrine of
Man) in a way in which we are not responsible for the sins of our more
recent ancestors.
b) Civil sanctions.
(1) The practice of idolatry (public enough to be witnessed) is a capital
crime, Deuteronomy 17:2-7.
(2) The idols of Canaan are to be utterly destroyed; not even the silver and
gold in them may be kept, Deuteronomy 7:25f., 12:3.
c) Note the emphasis upon God’s justice, and upon the seriousness of sin,
particularly idolatry. The idolater hates God, treasures up wrath for
himself, and brings enormous spiritual damage on later generations. Recall
the effects of secular humanism upon education, the media, etc., in our
own time.
2. The blessing: “and showing lovingkindness unto a thousand generations of
them that love me and keep my commandments.”
a) Mercy is greater than wrath. Cf. Romans 5, “much more.”
(1) Dor, generation, is not found in the Hebrew text of Exodus 20:5f. or
Deuteronomy 5:9f. It is understood as that to which “third” and
“fourth” apply, and, thus, should also be understood as following
“thousand.”
(2) ‘alafim, thousands, is, to be sure, a cardinal number, but there is no
special ordinal form of elef.
(3) Cf. Deuteronomy 7:9, where dor is used, and God’s hesed is extended
to a thousand generations.
b) Note the implicit connection between covenant jealousy and mercy.
Jealousy is not only negative; it guards the blessings of the faithful.
c) Note the promise also of material prosperity, Leviticus 26:1-13. The
connection is not mechanical (Job, etc.), but God promises blessing to the
whole person.
d) Ultimately, the promise is fulfilled in Christ, the one righteous man from
the wicked generations of Adam. His generations are the ones who love
142
God and keep his commandments. He refused idolatry (Matthew 4:8-10)
even to gain all the kingdoms of the world. Now all the kingdoms are his,
and ours in him—blessings unmeasured.
e) The lack of symmetry between judgment and mercy testifies to the
greatness of the grace of God. The wicked get what they deserve; the
righteous partake of utterly inexhaustible goodness in Christ. The blessing
does come to those who obey; but it is out of all proportion to anything
deserved by the obedient.
E. Broader Implications: The Positive Biblical Doctrine of Worship [Cf. I.A.1.b.]
1. Distinctively monotheistic: the strong prohibitions against worshipping other
gods are positively reinforced by the central altar, Deuteronomy 12:1-4. One
God, one altar, one law, one nation, one way of salvation. Ultimately, the cross
is the one altar.
2. Redemptive: Biblical worship is focused on sin, forgiveness and rejoicing in
redemption. There is nothing in it of magic or manipulation, our trying to gain
God’s favor or even to control God. Rather, we confess our sins and plead
God’s mercy on the basis of his sacrifice.
3. Imitative of God: Cf. Kline in WTJ, Spring and Fall, ‘77, Spring, ‘78. He
argues that the tabernacle, the temple, the priests’ garments and the human
worshippers themselves are presented in Scripture as images of the “glory
cloud” of God’s presence. [Cf. C.1., above: images are not forbidden because
images are impossible. Rather, images are forbidden because of the very
richness of imagery supplied by God himself at his covenantal initiative.
4. By Divine Command: the “regulative principle.”
a) Formulation: “But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is
instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may
not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or
the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other
way not prescribed in the holy Scripture.” (Westminster Confession of
Faith XXI:i).
(1) Cf. XX:ii: “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free
from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything
contrary to his word; or beside it, in matters of faith or worship.” Note
position of the semicolon, distinguishing faith and worship from other
matters.
(2) Note also two important qualifications in I:vi:
(a) “The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his
won glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set
down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be
deduced from Scripture . . . .” Worship is not limited to “express”
teachings of Scripture, but is based also on legitimate inferences
from Scripture. That is, applications. The Confession makes no
sharp distinction between the meaning of Scripture and its
143
application, and no distinction at all between these as to their
authority.
(b) “. . . and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship
of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions
and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and
Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word,
which are always to be observed.” Whenever a question arises as to
whether or not a practice is justified by the regulative principle, we
must ask whether that practice is an “element” of worship or a
mere “circumstance”. Such questions are often difficult to answer.
Yet, the Confession sees rightly that to apply Scripture to a
situation always involves some Christian prudence, some
knowledge of the situation, some extra-Scriptural premises. That
cannot be avoided in worship or in life in general.
(3) Summary.
(a) What we do in worship must be prescribed by Scripture. “Whatever
is not commanded is forbidden.” In Lutheranism, a different
principle prevails—”Whatsoever is not forbidden is permitted.”
Roman Catholicism is even further from the Reformed principle,
claiming the right to command what Scripture neither commands
nor forbids. Modernism is even worse, permitting and, at times,
commanding what Scripture forbids.
(b) The regulative principle does not require that everything we do in
worship be the response to a specific divine command. Acts
performed as response to inferences from Scripture, approved
examples in Scripture, or as circumstances of worship are
permitted.
b) Scriptural Basis.
(1) Recall earlier discussions of the sufficiency of Scripture for ethics—for
human life in general.
(2) Scripture is particularly jealous to guard this principle in the area of
worship. [Cf. Exodus 25:40; Hebrews 8:5; Numbers 16:1-40, 20:10-
13; I Samuel 13:8-14; I Chronicles 13, 15:1-15 (especially 15:13).]
These passages set forth the principle that the commands of God
concerning worship are not to be violated.
(3) Beyond this, there are also passages condemning idolatry on the
ground that an idol is a product of human initiative, a human creation.
[Cf. C.3.b.iii., above.] Not only are we not to violate God’s commands,
but, more specifically, we are not to devise means of worship beyond
what God has commanded. Cf. also C.1. on God’s sovereignty in
revelation.
(4) Scripture teaches explicitly that God is not to be worshipped according
to human devices.
144
(a) God condemns certain forms of worship simply on the ground that
they were not commanded, Leviticus 10:1f., Jeremiah 8:31.
(b) Colossians 2:22f. condemns “will-worship”—worship arising from
human initiative.
(5) In the New Covenant, the principle is fulfilled and confirmed in the
finished sacrifice of Christ, to which no one may add. Ultimately, Christ
is our priest, and we come before God in his name alone. (Hebrews 8-
10).
(a) Even in the Old Covenant, there were “ordinances” (Hebrews 9:1).
Christ performed the antitypical ordinances (9:11-28). The whole
pattern of worship, then, is subject to God’s ordination—the
regulative principle.
(b) Our regular worship is part of the pattern. We also enter the holy
place (10:19), imitating the prior entering of Christ. This language
pertains not only to salvation in general, but also to the
worshipping assembly (verses 24-25). Cf. Shepherd’s argument,
Biblical Doctrine of Worship, 52-55.
(6) As a matter of fact, when we assemble for worship, we are assembled
to obey certain divine commands. Anything else we do while assembled
cannot fairly be called “worship”.
c) Life and Worship: The point about the semicolon [a.i., above] raises the
question of the relation between acts of worship and other kinds of acts.
Cf. the treatment of this question from another angle in I.A.1.b.
(1) In creation in general, all things happen by God’s command. There is
no permission without command.
(2) Human life in general is subject to God’s law alone as the ultimate
standard: Deuteronomy 4:1f., 12:32, Proverbs 30:6, Acts 5:29.
(a) In a sense, all that we do is response to divine command. Some
divine commands are so broad as to cover all of life, so that
everything we do either obeys or disobeys them: Genesis 1:28;
I Corinthians 10:31; Romans 14:23, etc. Cf. previous discussions of
sola scriptura.
(b) Thus, there is no gray area of things which God neither approves
nor disapproves. Everything we do ought to be approved by God.
Cf. discussion of adiaphora.
(c) At the same time, there are many ways of fulfilling God’s
commands, many ways of applying them to life situations. These
applications require, as we have said, human prudence working
within the general teaching of Scripture. And often, there is more
than one way of obediently fulfilling a particular command—e.g.,
buying apples or oranges to feed your family.
(d) The pattern, then, is that all that we do should be the fulfillment of
God’s commands, but that the application of these commands to
situations involves godly human wisdom. So far, there is no clear
145
difference between this general “regulative principle” and the more
specific principle which is applied to worship.
(e) In our non-cultic life, there are subordinate authorities of various
sorts—parents, rulers, teachers, landlords, etc., to whom we owe
obedience, except when their word conflicts with God’s (cf.
discussion of the Fifth Commandment). Is this different in principle
from the cultic situation? Read on.
d) Elements and Circumstances
(1) I can accept the Confession’s distinction in a general sense. The basic
things we do in worship (“elements”) must be commanded in Scripture;
but in applying those commands, we may need to incorporate some
things not mentioned in Scripture (“circumstances”). This is true of any
divine command. God commands us to honor our parents, but to carry
out that command, we must do some things that Scripture does not
mention explicitly.
(2) However, in the extra-confessional writings of the Puritan and old Scots
divines, they tried to define the elements/circumstances distinction with
greater precision. I am not convinced that those precise definitions are
scriptural.
(a) Elements
(i) the “essential” or “substantial” parts of worship.
(ii) Everything that has “religious significance.”
(iii) Specific to a particular kind of worship (tabernacle, temple,
synagogue, NT church).
(iv) Each element has an independent Scriptural warrant. The
warrant for prayer cannot be stretched to include song, even
though many biblical songs are prayers.
(b) Circumstances: The “accidents,” as opposed to the “substance” of
worship. These are of three kinds:
(i) Events “common to human actions and societies” (WCF 1.6).
Like the time and place of worship.
(ii) Specific ways of carrying out elements (words of prayers, etc.),
sometimes called “forms” or “expressions.” With spiritual
meaning.
(iii) Actions that “have no connection at all with worship per se”
(Bushell). As the color of clothing worshippers wear. Unlike
(i), these are “separable” from worship.
(c) Objections
(i) None of these distinctions is warranted by Scripture: a great
irony, in a system that is supposed to make worship more
Scriptural.
(ii) Distinction between substance and accident is Aristotelian, not
biblical.
146
(iii) “Independence” of elements is atomistic. Elements of worship
in Scripture are not separate in this way. In song we pray and
receive instruction. We receive the preached Word with praise
and awe.
(iv) Distinction between “religious” and “non-religious” actions
questionable.
(A) Time of worship, clothing of worshipers can affect the
religious aspects of the service.
(B) All of life is religious in some senses (Kuyper).
(v) God has not provided a complete and specific list of elements
for every form of worship.
(A) Even the temple worship lacks a precise liturgy, though
much is said about the details of making sacrifice.
(B) Nothing on the synagogue, except that a “sacred assembly”
is appropriate (Lev. 23:3).
(C) Nothing on baptism as an element of NT worship services.
(D) Nothing on a sermon as an element of NT worship.
(E) Nothing on private worship, family worship, etc., or
“worship in the broad sense.”
(vi) Scripture fails to distinguish “circumstance” in any of its three
meanings, or to determine precisely which circumstances are
within the discretion of the church.
(vii) Hard to apply the element/circumstance distinction.
(A) Is song an element, or a circumstance?
(B) Is instrumental music an element, or a circumstance?
(C) Is marriage a proper element of worship?
e) Contra Traditionalism
(1) Notice how the catechism forbids additions to and subtractions from
biblical worship “whether invented and taken up by ourselves, or
received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity,
custom…”
(2) This is in line with the general Reformation emphasis of reforming
tradition according to the Word of God: sola Scriptura.
(3) By this principle, the Reformers rejected large bodies of church
tradition.
(4) It also made worship more contemporary, in the sense of emphasizing
the use of the vernacular. Thus they applied Paul’s emphasis in 1 Cor.
14 on the need for intelligibility in worship so that all (even unbelievers!)
might be edified.
(5) One should not, therefore, use the Regulative Principle to enforce past
modes of worship, unless Scripture itself requires them.
(a) The cult of plainness.
(b) The cult of ceremony.
147
F. Problem Areas.
1. Pedagogical Use of Images.
a) Advocates of images in the church have often claimed that while images
should not be worshipped, they may be venerated (douloo), and may serve
an important educational function, especially among the illiterate.
b) Protestants generally deny the distinction between worship and veneration
(but see later discussion on fifth commandment). Yet, they have sometimes
defended the use of images as an educational tool. Such was Luther’s
argument: these are “books for the laity.” Compare quotes from him in
Hodge, Systematic Theology, III, 303f. Hodge does not himself contest
Luther’s point, though he opposes the introduction of images into places of
public worship because of the possibility of abuse.
c) The Heidelberg Catechism, however, unambiguously opposes the
pedagogical use of images (Questions 97, 98): God, it says, “has willed
that his church be instructed, not by dumb images, but by the preaching of
his word.”
d) Comments.
(1) As we have seen, the second commandment is not dealing, at least
directly, with the use of images to instruct, but rather with the use of
images as mediators between God and man in worship. Does
instruction through images, then, involve “bowing down” before them?
That is the basic question.
(2) The question cannot be answered by saying that images are inaccurate
representations of their objects. Cf. previous discussion, C.1.b.v. No
picture is exhaustive in its correspondence with the thing pictured; but
that does not imply any inaccuracy. Inaccuracy is found, often, not in
pictures themselves, but in our interpretations of them; and of course,
that sort of inaccuracy is found in verbal teaching also.
(3) Similarly, it is not adequate to say that since God cannot be pictured
any image of him is a lie. As we have seen, there are images of God in
the world. Further, there are ways of representing God which, rightly
understood, do not mislead people about God’s invisibility, etc. It
would be ridiculous to say that the upper circle of Van Til’s two circle
diagram is a graven image in the sense of the second commandment.
But short of ruling out such markers, where do we draw the line? And,
even if we grant the substance of this objection, it does not apply to
pictures that do not claim to represent God.
(4) As we have seen, it is true that between the fall and the parousia God
instructs his people primarily by word rather than by image. However,
that is not an absolute principle. There have been theophanies, and
these have played an important role. Further, consider Jesus’ use of
illustrations of spiritual truths from the natural world, the use of vivid
metaphors and “imagery” in the Bible, the temple ornaments,
sacraments, etc.
148
(a) This sort of teaching assumes that created objects are in some
measure fitted to illustrate (and thus to “image”) spiritual truth.
(b) This sort of teaching, but not only this sort, inevitably produces
vivid mental images in us. If the instructional use of images is to be
rejected, then, it would seem that even mental images must be
avoided. Indeed, the Catechism opposes representations of God
even “inwardly in our mind.” However, I must take exception here
to the Catechism. It seems almost impossible to think without some
mental imagery. (Think, “The Lord is my shepherd.”) This
consideration doesn’t, of course, destroy the objection to images. If
images as such are wrong, then mental images are too, and we must
get rid of them no mater how hard it is. However, when the
objection requires such an extreme asceticism, we ought to think
hard about it.
(5) It seems to me that to deny the pedagogical use of images one would
have to show that being instructed by an image amounts to bowing
down to it. It is true that instruction is part of worship, and that we are
called to respond to instruction in awe, reverence, obedience. That
reverence, however, is not directed toward the medium of instruction
in any sense parallel to that of the idolater. We do not worship our
preacher as a representative of God. Thus, I am not convinced that an
adequate case has been made against the pedagogical use of images.
(6) Still, we must be aware of the human tendency to worship the creature
above the creator. The presence of pictures in the church is a very
serious temptation for many people, especially when they become a
permanent part of the church architecture.
2. Images of the Incarnate Christ.
a) Many have objected to the use of any pictures of the incarnate Christ on
the ground of the second commandment. WLC opposes “the making of
any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons.”
Arguments:
(1) Since God may not be pictured, and Jesus is God, Jesus may not be
pictured either.
(2) Iconoclasts in the Eastern Church argued that those who venerated
images of Christ were circumscribing Jesus’ divine nature. To worship
the picture would involve the assumption that his divine nature is
limited, circumscribed by the human nature and is therefore picturable.
Or it would imply that the human nature alone is pictured and thus is
separable from the divine nature.
(3) Some have argued that since we don’t know what Jesus looked like,
any picture will be a lie.
(4) Some take the second commandment to exclude any representations of
deity.
149
(5) The danger of idolatry, at least, is always present when pictures of
Jesus are used for any purpose.
b) Comments. Compare Jeffrey J. Myers, “Vere Homo: The Case for Pictures
of the Lord Jesus Christ” (Niceville, FL: Biblical Horizons, 1993).
(1) I disagree with a.(1) on two grounds:
(a) As we have seen, Scripture does not teach purely and simply that
God cannot be pictured.
(b) But even if God in himself were in every sense unpicturable, it is
clear that Christ, God incarnate, was picturable. He could be seen,
felt, touched, as well as heard. His face could be held in memory
(and there is surely no suggestion in Scripture that such mental
images were sinful! On the contrary, recall the emphasis upon the
eyewitness character of the apostolic testimony.) To deny this is
docetism, pure and simple. In this respect, clearly, the Old and New
Covenants are sharply different. At the establishment of the Old
Covenant, there was emphatically no form (Deuteronomy 4:15). At
the establishment of the New, there emphatically was (I John 1:1ff.,
etc.).
(2) Reply to a.(2): The relation between the two natures of Christ is, of
course, a difficult matter at any point in theology. I would argue,
however, that Jesus himself is, in both natures, in his person, image of
God. In him, deity was in one sense “circumscribed,” for all its fullness
dwelt in him; though in another sense, God was active beyond the body
of Jesus. To picture Jesus is to picture a divine person, not one
“nature” or other. To venerate such a picture, I believe, would be
wrong for reasons already adduced. I do not, however, think that an
adequate argument has been given against pedagogical use of such
pictures.
(3) Reply to a.(3): As we’ve said earlier, a picture does not become a “lie”
simply by being non-exhaustive. And, in fact, we do know something
about Jesus’ looks: He was male, Semitic, in middle life, was known to
wear a robe, etc. And if the shroud of Turin turns out to be authentic...
(4) Reply to a (4): As we have seen, the second commandment doesn’t
forbid all images of God, only those intended for use in worship, as we
earlier discussed it.
(5) Reply to a.(5): True.
3. Exclusive Psalmody: Many have argued for the exclusive use of Psalms in
worship on the ground of the regulative principle. They argue that there is no
command in Scripture to sing anything other than Psalms; thus, all other songs
are excluded.
a) The logical status of song: What is song? Is it an “element” of worship [cf.
above]? A “circumstance”? An aspect of some other element?
150
(1) We must not simply assume that it is an independent element, as, e.g.,
John Murray does in his minority report to the OPC General Assembly.
Some argument is needed.
(2) I maintain that song is not an independent “element” of worship, but a
form by which other elements are carried on. It is a form of prayer,
praise, teaching (Colossians 3:16), etc.
(a) There is no sharp distinction between sung and spoken words.
Consider the continuum: speech, poetry, chanting, song. At each
point, there are gray areas (even more in tonal languages!).
(b) Scripture regularly presents song as having the same functions in
worship as spoken words. Song has no functions that cannot also
be performed by spoken words.
(3) If song is really a form of prayer, teaching, etc., then, when we apply
the regulative principle, we must ask, not what Scripture commands us
to sing, but rather what Scripture commands us to pray, teach, etc. But
all Christians agree that extra-Scriptural words may be used in prayer,
praise, and teaching.
b) Scripture does command that, not only the Psalms, but also the statutes of
God (Psalm 119:54) and the deeds of God throughout Redemptive History
(Psalm 107:22) be sung in worship. I agree with the argument of Vern
Poythress (WTJ, Fall, `74; Winter, `75) that the “singing of Christ among
his people” applies the whole history of redemption to all his people
(application involving, as we’ve seen, extra-Scriptural content). This is
unavoidable in any case. Even the translation of Scripture involves
application in this sense.
c) Colossians 3:16; Ephesians 5:19.
(1) It has been argued that “psalms, hymns, and odes” in these passages all
refer to Psalms. I don’t think that point can be established either way.
(2) It has been argued that pneumatikos means “inspired,” meaning that
the Church is to sing inspired songs. However, pneumatikos is not
theopneustos. One may be “spiritual” without being “inspired,”
I Corinthians 3:1, Colossians 1:9.
(3) Even if these passages refer exclusively to Psalms, they do not limit the
church to the exclusive use of Psalms if, as we argued above, there are
other Scriptural justifications for singing uninspired hymns.
(4) “Teaching” and “admonishing” suggest not verbatim repetitions of
Scripture, but the application of Scriptural content. Cf. Poythress, op.
cit.
d) There is no clear biblical command to sing the entire Book of Psalms.
(1) Psalms in Col. 3:16 and elsewhere is not a technical term for the biblical
Book of Psalms. It simply refers to songs of praise.
(2) We should not assume, as many do, that the Book of Psalms was given
to us as an inspired “hymnal.” There is evidence (see my WST) that the
151
book is given, essentially, for meditation and instruction, as Psm. 1
suggests.
e) Those who worship using Psalms exclusively are never able to sing the name
of Jesus. Nor are they able to praise God for the completion of his
redemptive work in Christ.
f) My conclusion: God commands us to sing as part of worship, but there is no
evident restriction on the words we sing, except, of course, that they be
scriptural and appropriate to the purposes of worship.
4. The Use of Instruments in Worship.
a) Many of the same people who hold to exclusive psalmody also refuse the
use of instruments in worship. Students, therefore, often ask questions
about that issue at this point in the course. It is, however, a rather different
sort of issue from the others—not nearly so closely focused on the
regulative principle. After all, there are as many explicit commands to use
instruments as anyone could wish in the Psalms themselves! Here,
paradoxically, some of the strongest advocates of the regulative principle
seek to show that those commands are not currently applicable.
b) The argument, essentially, is that instrumental music in Scripture is part of
the temple worship, specifically the sacrificial ritual, and passes away with
the temple. New Covenant worship on this view is patterned on the
synagogue, where there were no instruments.
c) Comments:
(1) A very strong argument is needed to overcome the explicit commands
in the Psalms to use instruments. The argument under consideration is
dubious at best.
(2) No adequate argument is given to show that instruments are necessarily
connected with those aspects of temple worship which pass away.
(Obviously, many elements of temple worship do not pass away—
praise, singing, prayer, etc.) It is true that the instruments accompanied
the burnt offering (I Chronicles 29:27f.), but that was not their only
use. Cf. Numbers 10:2ff.; Ex. 15: 20-21, II Kings 11:14; I Chronicles
13:3, 15:24, 28; II Chronicles 5:5, 11-14; Ezra 3:10; I Samuel 18:6f. It
is impossible for all these and other references to pertain only to the
offerings. Instruments are routinely mentioned in the Psalms as
accompaniment to praise.
(3) No exegetical argument can be given to show that the “synagogue
pattern” as such is in any sense normative for the Christian church.
Gerhard Delling, Worship in the NT, points out that the earliest
references to Christian worship (as 1 Cor. 14) present a very informal,
Spirit-driven worship; the quasi-synagogue liturgy is a later
development.
(4) No adequate argument is given to show that the exclusion of
instruments from the synagogue was based on principles binding within
the New Covenant. Some have suggested that this exclusion is based
152
on the mourning of the Jews in exile, over the loss of the temple and
the promised land.
(5) Even if it were proven that instruments have no independent role in
New Covenant worship, they cannot be ruled out. As a “circumstance”,
they provide the important function of coordinating pitch and rhythm in
the singing. Many Covenanter churches use pitch-instruments. If we
can give the congregation pitch on the first note of a song, why not on
the second, etc.? And if we can help with pitch of melody, why not
pitch of harmony? rhythm? volume? tone quality? Why shouldn’t they
be used to teach the tunes before they are actually sung, etc.? Preludes,
offertory music, etc., are harder to defend on this basis. However, it
could be argued that some “background sound” in worship is
unavoidable, and that such music is at least preferable to bus noises,
screaming children or chattering women.
(6) The last point, plus the earlier Scripture references, suggests that
instrumental music is basically a form of song, just as song is a form of
speech [3.a., above]. Instruments are an extension of the human voice.
By them, we praise, rejoice, etc. If this analysis is correct, then the use
of instruments does not require any independent Scriptural justification.
To find out what Scripture allows us to play, we ask what Scripture
allows us to sing, and ultimately, to speak. From this perspective, the
prohibition of instruments begins to look like prohibition of
microphones, hearing aids, etc. The idea that we can blow air across
our vocal cords, or into electronic devices, but not through a
mouthpiece, seems highly arbitrary.
PASTORAL AND SOCIAL ETHICS
Lecture Outline, Part Four: Exposition of the Law of God:
Third, Fourth and Fifth Commandments
by John M. Frame
III. The Third Commandment: “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in
vain;
for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.”
Q. 112: What is required in the third commandment?
A. The third commandment requires, That the name of God, his titles, attributes,
ordinances, the word, sacraments, prayer, oaths, vows, lots, his works, and
whatsoever else there is whereby he makes himself known, be holily and reverently
used in thought, meditation, word, and writing; by an holy profession, and answerable
conversation, to the glory of God, and the good of ourselves, and others.
Q. 113: What are the sins forbidden in the third commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the third commandment are, the not using of God’s name as is
required; and the abuse of it in an ignorant, vain, irreverent, profane, superstitious, or
wicked mentioning or otherwise using his titles, attributes, ordinances, or works, by
blasphemy, perjury; all sinful cursings, oaths, vows, and lots; violating of our oaths and
vows, if lawful, and fulfilling them, if of things unlawful; murmuring and quarreling at,
curious prying into, and misapplying of God’s decrees and providences;
misinterpreting, misapplying, or any way perverting the word, or any part of it, to
profane jests, curious or unprofitable questions, vain janglings, or the maintaining of
false doctrines; abusing it, the creatures, or any thing contained under the name of God,
to charms, or sinful lusts and practices; the maligning, scorning, reviling, or any wise
opposing of God’s truth, grace, and ways; making profession of religion in hypocrisy,
or for sinister ends; being ashamed of it, or a shame to it, by unconformable, unwise,
unfruitful, and offensive walking, or backsliding from it.
A. Main Thrust.
1. The Name of the Lord.
a) Functions of names in Scripture (cf. Lordship attributes).
(1) Naming is an exercise of sovereignty (Control).
(a) One who names has control over the person or thing that is named.
The father names the child, the conqueror names the conquered
city, God names his people. God also names himself, indicating his
aseity, his self-control.
(b) It was thought that to know someone’s name was to have power
over that person—hence the belief in verbal magic, the use of
names in curses to bring injury, etc. As with all pagan belief, this
one is parasitic on the truth.
IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 3, Number 52, December 24 to December 30, 2001
154
(i) Knowing someone’s name involves knowing something about
him [cf. ii., below], and hence having a certain advantage in our
dealings with him.
(ii) When we know someone’s name, we can call on him and thus
locate him [below, iii.] and elicit a response.
(c) Sharing one’s name with someone else, then, creates a quasicovenantal
bond. It presupposes a particular kind of trust based on
obligations and expectations.
(d) Remarkably, God shares his name with his people in Scripture.
(i) He reveals it to them, enabling them, not to use it as a kind of
verbal magic, for their own purposes, but rather to call upon
him for help (cf. Proverbs 18:10; Psalm 20:1f.). They have no
power over him, but they may avail themselves of his power for
the sake of the covenant. This is remarkable; it is very much
like having power over God. Cf. Genesis 32:22-32, especially
verse 29.
(ii) He calls the people by his name, identifying his future with
theirs. Thus, his omnipotence will never fail to keep them safe.
(2) Naming is characterizing (Authority).
(a) In the biblical period, a person’s name usually meant something; it
was not, as often today, a mere marker chosen for its sound. Cf. the
interpretations of “Abraham,” “Israel,” the name changes, etc. Cf.
also the use of “name” for “reputation,” 1 Kings 4:31 (of
Solomon), Proverbs 22:1, etc. God’s name is great, Psm. 8:1, 9.
(b) God’s names also characterize him: El Shaddai as “God Almighty,”
etc.
(c) Therefore, God’s name is revelation; it communicates knowledge
of him. And God’s revelation is always authoritative. Both second
and third commandments focus on the revelation of God and its
bearing on our lives.
(d) To deny God’s power violates the name El Shaddai; to claim God’s
favor by our own righteousness violates “The Lord our
righteousness” (Horton).
(3) Naming is locating (Presence)
(a) A name also serves to mark a person; it furnishes a way of locating
a person in a crowd. We find him by calling his name, because
where the name is, he is.
(b) The name becomes closely identified with the person. When
someone laughs at your name, or forgets it, or mispronounces it,
you feel slighted. This is even more true in the broader use of
“name” to mean “reputation” (Proverbs 22:1, e.g.). To injure my
good name is to injure me; to revere my name is to revere me, etc.
(c) God, too, is identified with his name.
155
(i) To praise the name is to praise him, to despise the name is to
despise him, etc. We are saved for “his name’s sake,” Psm.
106:8. Glory is due his name (Psm. 29:2, 66:2, 96:8).
(ii) To say that God’s “name” dwells in the angel of the Lord, or the
tabernacle, or the temple, or Israel, etc., is to say that God,
Himself, dwells there.
(iii) The name has divine attributes: Deuteronomy 28:58, Psm. 8:1,
9, etc. We praise it, call upon it, etc. The name is God himself.
b) Breadth and narrowness of the name.
(1) Specific “names” of God: Elohim, Yahweh, El Shaddai, etc.
(2) The “name” is God’s total revelation of himself to man.
(3) The “name” of God himself [above, a.iii.].
c) Bearers of the name.
(1) Theophanies: the glory, the angel, the tabernacle, and the temple.
(2) Christ, Acts 4:12, Phil. 2:9-11, John 1:14, Rev. 13:5-9.
(3) God’s people.
(4) Creation. (Note here the way Jesus speaks in Matthew 5:33-37, an
exposition of the third commandment, and Matthew 23:16-22. One
cannot, he teaches, avoid the obligations of the commandment by
substituting the name of a creature for the name of God. The reason is
that all creation is inseparable from God, intimately involved with him.
To invoke creation, then, is to invoke the name of God. Cf. Kline on
creation as a reflection of the Glory-cloud.)
d) Implications.
(1) Since God’s name includes his total revelation of himself, extending to
all creation and particularly including God’s own people, this
commandment has unlimited breadth. God’s name is abused, not only
when we misuse a word like “God” or “Jesus,” but also when we abuse
ourselves (note interesting linguistic parallels in Psalm 24:4) or despise
God’s creation. All sin, then, may be seen as violation of the third
commandment.
(2) We can also see how the commandment is fulfilled in Christ. The name
of Christ is the name of God par excellence, the only name by which
we must be saved. He is the final revelation of God. To despise the
name of God, ultimately, is to despise Jesus Christ.
2. “Taking” the Name.
a) We generally take the third commandment as a rule concerning our
language, and certainly that is proper. However, the commandment itself
does not refer to “speaking” or “uttering” the name (amar, dibber), but
rather to “taking it up” (nasa’: bear, carry, lift up).
b) “Bearing” God’s name certainly includes our use of the name in our
speech, but not only that: it includes all of our relationships to the name of
God.
156
(1) God’s people bear God’s name in the sense of carrying it in their own
persons [cf. above, 1.c.]. Note, then, the remarkable parallel to the
third commandment in Psalm 24:4. The reference to false swearing
alludes to the commandment, and “lifted up his soul unto vanity” is a
precise linguistic parallel to the commandment, with “his soul”
substituted for “the name of the Lord thy God.” That very substitution
is a remarkable thing. God is so identified with us that to defile our
own souls is in effect to defile his name. Cf. the second commandment
which, as we have seen, guards the uniqueness of man, particularly of
redeemed man, as “image of God.” The commandments always have an
existential reference.
(2) Note also our relationships to the name of God in creation and in Christ.
All created things will either be “lifted up” to God or to vanity.
(3) Note, therefore, the narrowness and breadth of the commandment. A
commandment about false swearing but, by implication, about all of
life.
3. “Vanity”.
a) The normal meaning of the Hebrew term is “emptiness,”
“purposelessness”. On that basis, the commandment forbids us to use
God’s name for unworthy purposes.
b) Some have suggested that in this context the term ought to mean “falsely,”
since that is emphasized in parallels such as Leviticus 19:12, Psalm 24:4.
Linguistic evidence for that use is lacking, however, and the hypothesis is
really unnecessary. Falsehood is one kind of vanity, granted the first
interpretation. Thus, even on the first view, Leviticus 19:12 and Psalm
24:4 present valid applications of the commandment.
c) Similarly, it could be argued that vanity is a form of falsehood. If you use
God’s name in a pointless or worthless way, you are falsifying it,
exchanging it for a lie (cf. Romans 1).
d) Thus, the argument between the two interpretations is somewhat academic.
e) On either view, we note again the breadth of meaning here. Not only are
we forbidden to make false statements using God’s name, but also to make
any use of it which is unworthy of God. I Corinthians 10:31.
4. The sanction: “for the Lord will not hold him guiltless.”
a) Blasphemy is considered a particularly serious crime in Scripture. The
death penalty is administered for it—even to “strangers,” Leviticus 24:15f.
Cf. the penalty for cursing parents, Exodus 21:17. The crucifixion of Christ
was based on a charge of blasphemy. The worst sin noted by Jesus himself
was the “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 12:22-32; Mark
3:22-30). This somberness, then, is reflected here in the lack of a blessing
sanction.
(i) Douma, 80: “willfully misunderstanding and branding as a
devilish act what in fact comes from the Holy Spirit.” The Jews
157
had seen with their own eyes the work of God, in such a way
that it could not have been missed.
(ii) Compare Heb. 10:26-31.
(iii) Though said to be against the Spirit, the focus of this sin is the
Spirit’s witness to the work of Christ. It is in effect blasphemy
against the holy name of Jesus.
b) The curse formula does not mean that forgiveness is excluded. The same
curse attaches to every sin and is borne by Christ on behalf of his people.
However, that blasphemy which, by its very nature, rejects forgiveness and
rejects it unalterably will never be forgiven (Matthew 12:22-32, parallels).
5. Relation to First Two Commandments (see chart).
a) The first commandment requires us to worship God exclusively; the second
requires us to worship him only according to his word. The third requires
us, in our worship, to make a right use (nasa’) of the word (the name). It is
not enough to have God’s revelation; one must use it rightly.
b) We can, then, see a parallel with the “three perspectives.” The first
commandment sets forth the situational perspective, the basic relation
between the one God and his creatures. The second sets forth the
normative perspective, the basic revelation by which they will be governed.
The third sets forth the existential perspective, demanding a right
application of that revelation.
c) Note, then, a certain trinitarian structure: the one God, the word he speaks,
and the application of that word (always associated in Scripture with the
Holy Spirit). We could summarize by saying that God demands
wholehearted covenant loyalty to him in the fullness of his triune being,
honoring his triune works. The first three commandments together are a
“love command,” requiring exclusive covenant loyalty to the triune God.
d) The three together (as well as individually) encompass, in a striking way,
the totality of human life. Love for God is demanded in our basic heartorientation
[I.], in word (our life-norms) [II.], and in deed [III.—the act of
application]. In III, the word is applied to the heart as to all of life,
completing the circle. Of course, each, obeyed seriously, involves
obedience to the others.
B. Positive Uses of the Name of God.
We have seen that the commandment applies to all of life. Here, however, we shall
focus on some of the matters to which the commandment applies more narrowly
and specifically, namely, the uses of the divine name in speech. (Even these, to be
sure, have a tendency to broaden out, as we shall see!) As a convenient division, let
us consider the uses of God’s name in terms of man’s kingly, prophetic, and priestly
functions (reflecting God’s control, authority, covenant solidarity). These uses are
oath (kingly), confession (prophetic), and blessing (priestly).
1. Oaths (kingly function).
a) Concept: In an oath, we call God to witness concerning the truth of a
statement (“assertory”) or promise (“promissory”). We call upon God to
158
use his power against us if we lie, hence the emphasis on the power of an
oath (kingly function). Cf. Hebrews 6:16.
(1) As such, an oath is an act of worship. It has a godward reference. The
honor of God is primarily in view in the third commandment, the
dangers of false oaths to our fellow men being central in the ninth
commandment. In this regard, cf. Deut. 10:20-21, Isaiah 45:23, 19:18,
65:16; Deuteronomy 6:13; Psalm 63:11, where swearing by God’s
name is a mark of those who belong to God. (Notice how this “specific
application” of the third commandment itself becomes in Scripture a
figure for the whole covenant relation. In Romans 14:11 and
Philippians 2:10, the “swearing” is equated with confession and the
latter with recognition of Christ’s lordship.)
(2) An oath also has a manward reference. It is a way of maintaining
stability, dependability, in a fallen world. Under certain circumstances,
a man’s word was to be accepted without corroboration on the basis of
an oath (Exodus 22:10f.). The oath has always been a vital aspect of
the administration of civil law. Where the oath is despised, the result is
government corruption, civil injustice.
(3) It is possible to be under oath in effect even without uttering the name
of God, although in general, oaths involve such utterances.
(a) Adjuration: In an adjuration, we are in effect put under oath by
another party, generally, someone in authority. Cf. Joshua 7:19;
Matthew 26:63f.
(b) Solemn attestation, without specific use of a divine name: Genesis
42:15, 31:53; Exodus 24:7; Deuteronomy 27:11ff.; I Samuel 1:26;
Joshua 24:19-22; Jesus’ “Verily, verily.”
(c) Such borderline cases help us more clearly to see how, in a sense,
the believer is always under oath. Cf. b.iv., below.
(4) A vow is a promise to God that we will perform a particular act. It is
therefore, in effect, an oath-commitment.
b) Obligation.
(1) Scripture commands us to swear in God’s name: Exod. 22:10-11,
Deuteronomy 6:13, 10:20; Isaiah 65:16; Jeremiah 12:16; cf. Romans
14:11; Philippians 2:10.
(a) The point is not that we ought to take oaths every so often as a
means of grace; rather, it is that when an oath is necessary, it ought
to be taken in the name of the true God, rather than in the name of
another god.
(b) But once we come to believe in the true God, taking an oath is an
act of religious worship (Deut. 10:20, Isa. 19:18), a way of
confessing our faith in the true God.
(2) Examples.
(a) God himself: Genesis 22:16 (Hebrews 6:13-17), 26:3, Psalm 89:3,
49, 110:4, 132:11; Jeremiah 11:5; Ezekiel 33:11; Luke 1:73.
159
(b) Jesus accepts the adjuration, Matthew 26:63f., gives solemn
attestations (“verily”).
(c) Paul: Romans 1:9, 9:1f.; II Corinthians 1:23, 11:31; Galatians 1:20;
Philippians 1:8; I Thessalonians 2:5, 10, 5:27.
(d) An angel in Rev. 10:5-6.
(e) Many other biblical characters: Genesis 14:22ff., 21:23f., etc.
(f) Common practice, Heb. 6:13-20.
(g) Many examples of vows: cf. also Psalm 22:25, 50:14, 65:1, etc.,
where the paying of vows is a synecdoche for the whole of
religious worship.
(3) Oath-bound commitment is the essence of covenant obligation and
religious confession: Romans 14:11; Philippians 2:10.
(4) The prohibition of oaths in Matthew 5:33-37; James 5:12.
(a) In view of (1) –(3) above, it would be strange indeed if these
passages intended to forbid oaths as such. Nowhere else in
Scripture is there any hint of rebuke to anyone for the mere act of
taking an oath (though, of course, there are examples of false
oaths, unwise oaths, etc.) The fact that oath-bound commitment is
essential to our relation with God is a particularly telling datum.
The fact that God himself swears is also important—more
important than it may appear on the surface. It might be argued that
God’s right to swear does not imply our right to swear. On the
other hand, in the context of Scripture, it is clear that God has far
less reason to swear than we do. If he, who is perfectly trustworthy
and self-attesting, sometimes confirms his word with an oath,
surely, there are times when we ought to do the same.
(b) The context of Matthew 5:33-37 (cf. 23:16-22) suggests that Jesus
is opposing a particular misuse of the oath, namely, the use of
substitutes for the divine name to escape full obligation. Cf. below,
c., also Murray, Principles, 168-174. James may be summarizing
Matthew 5:33-37 to people already aware of that context. “Do not
swear at all” means do not swear at all by heaven, earth, Jerusalem,
etc.
(c) In Rabbinic sources, with strikingly similar language, the distinction
is made between frivolous and unnecessary oaths on the one hand
and solemn oaths on the other. The former are forbidden with the
formula “Let your yes be yes and your no, no.” Jesus, doubtless,
has this sort of problem in mind.
(d) So these passages in effect place us under continuous oath. Our yea
is to be yea and our nay, nay. We are not to use the institution of
the oath as an excuse for carelessness with the truth when not
under oath (cf. the child’s “I said I would, but I didn’t promise.”)
All of our speech ought to partake of the quality of “solemn
attestation” [above, a.iii.b)]. The use of the oath ought, at most, to
160
be an accommodation to a fallen situation. More on this under the
ninth commandment.
c) Oaths Resulting in Sin.
(1) Oaths with wrong content (normative).
(a) Idolatrous: in the name of a false god, Exodus 23:13, cf.
Deuteronomy 6:13, 10:20, etc.
(b) Pledging something unlawful, 1 Sam. 25, Matthew 14:7; Acts 23:12.
(i) It is often argued that general oaths of secrecy fall under this
category—i.e., pledges to secrecy without knowledge of what
is to be kept secret. Vs. secret societies, etc.
(ii) Similarly, oaths required in secret societies and labor unions to
put the interests of the organization above all others—vs. the
biblical “chief end of man.”
(c) The Catechism says that we should not even keep an existing oath
if it is “of things unlawful.” When an existing oath requires us to
sin, it at that point becomes an unlawful oath and we are released
from keeping it. An oath cannot compel to sin.
(i) Scripture does tell us to keep oaths “to our own hurt” (Psm.
15:4), but not to the hurt of others, or injury to the name of
God.
(ii) An oath of office may not require us to obey unjust orders from
governmental superiors (Nazis, etc.)
(iii) An oath of secrecy may not compel us to keep secret matters
that God requires us to reveal.
(2) Oaths not kept (situational).
(a) Lying oaths, perjury, Leviticus 19:12; Psalm 109:17-19, cf.
Deuteronomy 23:21-23; Psalm 66:15f.; Mark 14:71.
(b) Reneging on a vow which involves self-sacrifice, Psalm 15:7; Acts
5:4.
(c) Breaking vow to enemies: Gibeon, Josh. 9:1-27, 2 Sam. 21:1-14.
(d) Evasions through use of substitutes for God’s name. [Cf. A.1.c.,
above; also Murray, 168-174].
(3) Oaths arising from wrong attitudes (existential).
(a) Rash, foolish oaths, I Samuel 14:24f.; Judges 11. On the difficult
question of Jephthah’s vow, I follow (with some hesitation) the
view that Jephthah dedicated his daughter to serve God in
perpetual virginity. [Cf. Keil and Delitsch, ad loc.]
(b) Presumptuous swearing, Isaiah 48:1f.—i.e., assuming our right to
swear in God’s name despite unrepentant sinfulness.
(c) Over-frequent or trivial swearing, [cf. above, b.iv.b) & c). Also, iv.,
below].
d) Trivialization of God’s Name.
161
(1) In an oath, we invoke the name of God to solemnize an affirmation or
promise. In the last section c), we saw how certain oaths violate the
solemnity and sanctity of the divine name, though all oaths assume that
solemnity and appeal to it. However, it is also possible to sin by
renouncing this solemnity altogether—by frivolous or trivial use of
God’s name. Such use of God’s name is, in one sense, the opposite of
the oath commanded in Scripture.
(2) Trivial cursing.
(a) “Damn,” “Hell,” etc., even “My God,” “Jesus,” used casually in our
society, as mere exclamations.
(b) “Darn,” “gosh,” “golly,” “jeez:”
(i) Many are not even aware of the religious origins of these terms.
(ii) If used in serious oaths, they would be a form of attempted
mitigation (Matt. 23:16-22) condemned by Jesus; but most
people don’t take them as such.
(c) There is here usually no explicit intention to blaspheme, as in the
curses condemned in Scripture. So we should not consider them to
be as serious sins as self-conscious blasphemies.
(d) Still, such curses are a symptom (Douma) of the prevalent unbelief
in society, unbelief that we cannot take casually. Were our society
fully Christian, God’s name would be taken much more seriously.
(e) It is impossible to rebuke every such curse that we hear. (Generally,
it is impossible to rebuke every sin that we observe; there are just
too many.) But we should be alert to opportunities to use these
moments in witness.
(3) Irreverence
(a) T-shirt: “This blood’s for you.” Wrong?
(b) Irreverence can be in the mind of the beholder. The wearer might
have mainly an evangelistic motive: a holy desire to begin a
conversation with someone about Christ. Perhaps there are things
to be said both pro and con here.
(c) Use of popular musical styles in worship. See my CWM.
(4) Does this principle rule out all use of God’s name, even of God’s
revelation, in humor?
(a) Ephesians 5:4 condemns “foolish talk” and “coarse jesting,”
probably describing pointless silliness and gutter-type language. All
humor, however, cannot be shown to have these qualities.
(b) There is humor in the Bible, but the jokes are too old and familiar
for us to appreciate. Matthew 19:24, 23:24; Acts 12:12-16, etc.
(c) Humor has constructive, even serious purposes at times: to display
graphically the Creator / creature distinction, etc. Even as sheer
entertainment, it can have a recreative function. “Let there be light”
uttered while pulling the light switch—shows, in an ironic way,
both the analogy and the ridiculous disparity between man’s
162
technology and God’s. Scripture always speaks well of a
“cheerful,” “merry” or “glad” heart: Proverbs 15:13; II Corinthians
9:7, etc.
2. Confession (prophetic function): In confession, we acknowledge God’s
covenant name as our own, ourselves as part of the covenant. In confessing
before men, we also proclaim to them the word of the Lord.
a) Obligation (note connection with salvation): Matthew 10:32; Romans
10:9f; I Peter 3:15.
b) Related Sins.
(1) Concealing our allegiance, John 12:42.
(2) Denying Christ, Matthew 26:69ff.
(3) Heresy.
(4) Blasphemy, Psalm 74:10-18; Isaiah 52:5f.; Revelation 16:9, 11, 21.
(a) Punished by death, Leviticus 24:16, even if a “stranger.”
(b) The most serious sin: blasphemy against the Spirit, Matthew 12:31,
persistent, defiant refusal to acknowledge God in the face of the
clearest knowledge.
(5) Giving occasion to pagans to blaspheme, 2 Sam. 12:14, Ezek. 36:20-32.
(6) Confessing God in a context in which it will likely lead only to ridicule
and blasphemy. (Douma: sometimes “speech is silver, but silence is
golden”), Matt. 26:63, 27:14.
(7) Invoking God’s name in support of causes without biblical warrant, 1
Phil. 3:6, Tim. 1:13. “God on our side.” “This is God’s will.”
Afrikaners, Nazis.
(8) Using Scripture to support heresy, 2 Pet. 2:1-3, 3:16.
3. Blessing (priestly function): Given to God by man, the blessing is equivalent to
praise; directed to other men, it identifies them with God’s name and thereby
declares there right to inherit the covenant promises. It is a form of prayer for
them in the name of God as well.
a) Obligation: Scripture calls us both to bless God’s people and to intercede
for all men in prayer.
b) Related Sins:
(1) Reviling man, Matthew 5:22; Ephesians 4:29; James 3:9.
(a) To mock the poor is to insult his maker, Prov. 17:5. Cf. Cursing the
deaf, Lev. 19:14.
(b) The passages do not place a general condemnation on strong
language. The prophets and apostles frequently use strong language
against their hearers. Remarkably, Jesus Himself, having
condemned some for using moros (Matthew 5:22), uses the same
term against the Scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 23:17, 19). [Cf.
Paul, Galatians 1:8f].
(c) Evidently, just as there is a righteous and an unrighteous anger (cf.
sixth commandment), so there is an unrighteous and a righteous use
163
of strong language. The question is whether we are venting our
own (murderous) hatred or being zealous for the honor of God.
(2) Incantations, use of God’s name to control him, Acts 19:13-17.
C. Language in Literature and Drama.
1. I have sometimes been asked, particularly in the light of Ephesians 4:29,
whether it is ever legitimate for a Christian actor to utter blasphemies, e.g.,
while impersonating a character, or for a Christian writer to put foul language
in the mouth of a character.
2. Ephesians 4:29 clearly does not mean to forbid the mere physical act of uttering
an unedifying expression. Scripture itself records (and when we read Scripture,
we read) the unedifying and even blasphemous words of God’s enemies. Of
course, it records these for our edification: unedifying words in an edifying
context.
3. The question, then, becomes: does a literary or dramatic blasphemy serve an
edifying purpose in its larger context? It does, I think, when (as Scripture) it
aims to portray unbelief as unbelief—when its portrayal is, on Christian
criteria, true.
4. On this criterion, there ought, probably, to be more blasphemy and vulgarity in
Christian drama than there usually is. These sins utterly pervade our society
today, and any truthful portrayal of that society ought to be consistent with
that pervasiveness.
5. We are not, however, on this basis, to wallow in filth for its own sake. Whether
we like it or not, that is what our sinful nature would have us do. And we have
great skill in rationalizing such desires.
6. The point is to present sin in its true colors—as something ugly, destructive
and, in a certain way, ridiculous. That is the challenge to the Christian artist.
7. “Method” acting—where an actor motivates himself to portray, e.g., hate by
generating feelings of hate within himself will often be forbidden to the
Christian. Yet, I suspect that morality and dramatic effectiveness are not
thereby opposed to one another. A good artist must maintain both empathy
with and distance from his subject, as did Jesus when he loved and suffered for
sinners, without losing his own identity as the sinless, divine savior. A
“method” which insists on identification without distance cannot express
redemptive involvement.
IV. The Fourth Commandment: “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days
shalt
thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is a sabbath unto the Lord thy God:
in
it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested
the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.” (Exodus
20:8-11). In Deuteronomy 5:12-15, it reads: “Observe the sabbath day, to keep it holy, as
the Lord thy God commanded thee. Six days shalt thou labor . . . nor thy stranger that is
within thy gates; that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou. And
thou shalt remember that thou was a servant in the land of Egypt, and the Lord thy God
164
brought thee out thence by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm: therefore the Lord
thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.”
WLC, Q116: What is required in the fourth commandment?
A116: The fourth commandment requires of all men the sanctifying or keeping holy to
God such set times as he hath appointed in his word, expressly one whole day in seven;
which was the seventh from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ,
and the first day of the week ever since, and so to continue to the end of the world;
which is the Christian sabbath, and in the New Testament called The Lord's day.
Q117: How is the sabbath or the Lord's day to be sanctified?
A117: The sabbath or Lord's day is to be sanctified by an holy resting all the day, not
only from such works as are at all times sinful, but even from such worldly
employments and recreations as are on other days lawful; and making it our delight to
spend the whole time (except so much of it as is to betaken up in works of necessity
and mercy) in the public and private exercises of God's worship: and, to that end, we
are to prepare our hearts, and with such foresight, diligence, and moderation, to
dispose and seasonably dispatch our worldly business, that we may be the more free
and fit for the duties of that day.
Q119: What are the sins forbidden in the fourth commandment?
A119: The sins forbidden in the fourth commandment are, all omissions of the duties
required, all careless, negligent, and unprofitable performing of them, and being weary
of them; all profaning the day by idleness, and doing that which is in itself sinful; and by
all needless works, words, and thoughts, about our worldly employments and
recreations.
A. Place of the Fourth Commandment in the Decalogue (recall chart preceding
discussion of First Commandment).
1. Despite Meredith Kline’s refutation of the traditional “two table” notion, there
is a broad progression in the Decalogue from commandments focusing on our
relation to God to others focusing on our relation to one another.
2. In this progression, the Fourth Commandment is something of a transition from
the one focus to the other.
a) Like I-III, it stresses the nature of God’s covenant with us and demands a
certain kind of worship.
b) Like V-X, it emphasizes our obligation to love one another, to give rest as
well as to rest ourselves, to relativize social distinctions.
3. The Fourth Commandment is more specific than I-III on the kind of obedience
required. It begins the recapitulation of the creation ordinances which
continues through X.
B. The Divine Sabbath (the rest of God himself from his creative work—Genesis
2:2f; Exodus 20:11).
1. The divine Sabbath is essentially a celebration of God’s lordship over creation.
165
a) At the start of the divine Sabbath, God’s creative work (including his
creation of man) was finished. It was at this point, then, that the creator
first stood over against a finished creation. The covenant-lordship relation
was fully established by creation itself. The divine Sabbath, then, was not
enjoyed in the isolation of intra-divine life. From its beginning, it was the
celebration of a relation.
b) Meredith Kline (“Primal Parousia,” WTJ, Spring, 1978, 259ff.) describes
the divine Sabbath as an “enthronement,” citing parallels with God’s
enthronement in the microcosmic “temple-house”. The enthronement
follows divine victory and judgment (over the deep and darkness) and the
creation of the world as his royal dwelling.
2. The Sabbath celebrates the lordship of God in its three aspects.
a) Control: Celebrates the divine victory—the “penetration of the darkness by
the divine theophanic glory” (Kline, 263).
b) Authority: The Sabbath begins with the declaration that creation is good
and finished. Cf. Kline, 261.
c) Presence in blessing and judgment:
(1) Presence of the glory-theophany is his completed temple.
(2) Judicial approbation [b., above], self-glorifying; cf. union of Sabbath
with “Day of the Lord”—the day of judgment (and grace) (Kline). On
this day, he judges all that he has made, and declares it good.
(3) When God blesses his own Sabbath, he blesses us. [cf. B.3.; C.1.,
below]
3. The divine Sabbath was offered to Adam and Eve.
a) In Hebrews 3-4, the divine Sabbath is an eschatological promise,
representing the consummation of redemptive blessing that follows the last
judgment. God entered the Sabbath at the end of creation, and his
redeemed are to enter it at the end of this age. Note 4:4.
b) Since from the beginning the Sabbath celebrated a relation [1.a., above], it
must have involved Adam and Eve in some way.
c) Since the account of the divine Sabbath follows the “cultural mandate”, the
command to work, it is hard to avoid the assumption that in the divine
Sabbath God was promising rest to the man and woman as the fulfillment
of this labor: had they completed the cultural mandate obediently, they
would have entered the rest of God.
d) This inference is only a probable one; so far as I can tell, no passage of
Scripture sets forth these concepts in so many words. However,
throughout Scripture, the divine Sabbath does function as an
eschatological promise, and it would be surprising if it did not also have
that function before the fall.
C. The Human Sabbath: Its Meaning.
1. Human Sabbath and Divine Sabbath.
a) When God blessed his own Sabbath in Genesis 2:3, he did it with man in
view [cf. B.1.a., above; also 3.b.].
166
b) When God blessed his own Sabbath, he did it as an example for man
(Exodus 20:11): Israel is to cease from work because God ceased from
work.
c) When God blessed his own Sabbath, he also blessed man’s. Exodus 20:11
clearly refers to the human Sabbath, which is the subject of the fourth
commandment.
d) Exodus 20:11 seems to assume some sort of unity between the divine
Sabbath and the human Sabbath, even though the former is unending and
the latter is a weekly occurrence.
(i) “The” Sabbath referred to in the verse is the human Sabbath
[above, c.], but also the divine Sabbath (context of Genesis
2:3).
(ii) Ex. 20:11 says that God blessed the human Sabbath in Gen. 2:3.
e) We shall see that the human Sabbath is a covenantal sign and seal, a
sacrament in effect. In that framework, we could perhaps speak of the
divine Sabbath as “present” in the human sacrament, as God is present in
Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. In the weekly Sabbath, we not only
symbolize, but also enjoy by anticipation the divine Sabbath promised to
God’s people.
f) At the very least, the human Sabbath is a replica of the divine, as man
himself is made in the image of God. As man himself is made to reflect
God’s glory, so the human Sabbath is made to reflect the glory of the
divine Sabbath.
2. The Human Sabbath as a Meeting with God.
a) On the Sabbath, God’s rest and man’s intersect [1., above]. God who rests
from his creative labors invites his creatures to share his rest in anticipation
of their final rest.
b) If we share God’s rest, then he must share ours. As his day belongs to us,
so ours, our Sabbath, belongs to him. Our human Sabbath is set aside as
his day.
(1) Exodus 20:8: We are to “remember” (active memorializing, not just
recollecting) to keep the Sabbath “holy” (i.e., set apart, given over to
him). Cf. Exodus 31:13-17; Jeremiah 17:22; Isaiah 58:13; Ezekiel
44:24. To “keep” God’s Sabbaths, Lev. 19:3, 30, Isa. 56:4, Ezek.
20:10.
(2) Verses 9, 10: “Thou shalt labor . . . .” “do all thy work,” sharply
contrasted with “the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” The six days are
for our work; the seventh exclusively for him.
(3) The contrasts between our pleasure and his day are frequent in the Old
Testament. Note, e.g., Isaiah 58:13: “If thou turn thy foot from the
Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day. . . .” (note
repetitions of these contrasts in the passage).
167
(4) That the human Sabbath belongs particularly to the Lord is to be
expected, since it reflects the divine Sabbath, a celebration of God’s
Lordship, B.3.
(5) Note the association of Christ with the Sabbath as its Lord: Matthew
12:8, parallels, John 5:16f.
(6) The “Lord’s day,” Revelation 1:10—D., below.
(7) As a covenant sign [3.b., below], the Sabbath is a mode of God’s
presence among his people.
(8) Parallels between Sabbath and temple: Leviticus 19:30, 26:12; Matthew
12:5f.
(9) Parallel between the disciples’ Sabbath behavior and David’s holy
soldiers, the holy labors of priests: I Samuel 21:1-6; Matthew 12:3ff.
(10) Sabbath legislation emphasizing the sanctification of the Sabbath
(Exodus 31:12-17) follows legislation on the sanctification, the
tabernacle and priesthood (25:1-31:11).
(11) Note relations between the Sabbath as the divine day of judgment,
association of divine attributes with the latter, Kline, “Primal
Parousia,” 265.
c) Thus, the Sabbath is a day of worship.
(1) Even if no cultic rites were prescribed, the Sabbath would be an act of
worship, merely on the basis of what we have already said.
(a) To “meet with God” is to worship [2.a.].
(b) To “remember” a particular day, to keep it holy, is an act of
worship [2.b.].
(c) Celebrating the Lordship of God [2.b.iv.] is an act of worship.
(2) References to worship on the Sabbath.
(a) Remember that “Sabbaths” are not only weekly Sabbaths, but also
feast days.
(b) Weekly meetings of local worshippers (Lev. 23:3, the synagogue).
Jesus did endorse the synagogue pattern in this respect: Luke
4:15ff., parallels.
(c) Sabbath offerings: Numbers 28:9f.; Ezekiel 45:17, 46:3; Nehemiah
10:32f.; Cf. Matthew 12:15f.
(d) Song for the Sabbath Day, Psm. 92:1.
(e) New Testament references to the first day of the week.
(i) Days on which the risen Christ meets his people: Matt. 28:9,
Luke 24:13-51; John 20:1, 19, 26; Revelation 1:10. Did Mary
rest in Luke 10:38-42 because the divine Sabbath was present
in Christ (Cf. Matt. 11:28)? Cf. Christ as the temple-Sabbath,
Matthew 12:5f.
(ii) Days on which the church met to worship, doubtless in
celebration of the Lord’s victory, Acts 2:1, 20:6f., I Corinthians
16:1f., Revelation 1:10.
168
3. The Human Sabbath is an Imitation of God.
The human Sabbath is one with God’s [above, 2.] but also distinct from it. It is
a “finite replica” (Kline). Thus, on the Sabbath, we not only share God’s rest,
but we also seek to copy that rest at a finite, recurring level. In copying it, we
not only honor God’s lordship [B.1.; C.2.]; we also seek to reflect that lordship
in our own vassal kingship. We exert our own lordship in its “control, authority,
presence.”
a) Control: the sabbatical pattern as labor and rest.
(1) Labor: “. . . six days shalt thou labor . . . .”
(a) It is sometimes overlooked that the fourth commandment deals not
only with rest, but also with labor. It presupposes that we will work
six days!
(b) Calvin argues that the language of the commandment does not
present us with an obligation as much as a gift: God gives us six
days to do our work. There is much truth in this, but, of course,
divine gifts always come wrapped in obligations (and vice-versa!).
(c) In the larger context of Scripture, labor is a creation ordinance
(Genesis 1:28ff.). In all periods of redemptive history, idleness is
condemned (Proverbs; II Thessalonians 3:10f.).
(d) This commandment does not mean that we must work for a
particular employer 48 hours out of every week. “Labor” in the
Scriptural context, of course, includes more than the earning of
family income. It includes maintenance of the home, general
cultural activity, etc.
(e) Clearly, too, the commandment does not mean that we may rest
from labor only on Sabbath! Daily rest, nourishment, recovery from
illness, etc., is presupposed. Fanatical labor (the modern
“workaholic”) is condemned as lacking trust in God (Psalm 127:1f.).
Cf. also Jesus in Mark 6:31.
(2) Rest.
(a) The Sabbath is essentially the celebration of a completed work.
(i) Cf. above, B.2. on the divine Sabbath.
(ii) Tabernacle and temple construction indicate provisional
fulfillment of God’s judgments and victory. Note sabbatical
pattern in their consecration (Kline); also passages like Exodus
39:43, 40:33.
(iii) At the human level, the Sabbath is a pause from our labors to
take satisfaction in them as we consecrate them to God.
(iv) As such, the Sabbath anticipates (and participates in!) the final
rest from labor which we will enjoy in God’s presence. Cf. b.,
below.
(b) What kind of work is prohibited?
169
(i) Daily labor (Ex. 31:13-17), including plowing and harvesting
(34:21), commerce and transport of goods (Amos 8:4-6, Jer.
17:21).
(ii) Building of fires (Ex. 35:3, Num. 15:32-26)? I suspect these
texts do not pertain to fires for heating and cooking. See James
Jordan, Sabbath Breaking and the Death Penalty.
(A) Pi’el form in Ex. 35:3 typically refers to ceremonial burning
(Lev. 6:12, Neh. 10:35, 2 Chron. 4:20, 13:11, etc.), or the
fire of divine judgment (Ezek. 20:48, 39:9f, Isa. 4:4, etc.).
(B) On the Sabbath, God’s altar-fire (“hearth fire”) was
intensified (Num. 28:1-10).
(C) So evidently this is a case like the “strange fire” in Lev. 10:1.
No human fire must be intensified to rival God’s ceremonial
fire on the Sabbath day.
(D) The wood gatherer in Num. 15 is held in custody, because
the precise penalty for his sin has not been revealed (verse
34).
1. Evidently his crime is not that of ordinary work on
the Sabbath, but a “high handed” sin (discussed in
context, verses 22ff). Mere working on the Sabbath
was not a capital crime in Ex. 16:27-30, Neh. 13:19-
22.
2. Evidently he was attempting to stoke up his fire in a
way forbidden by Ex. 35:3.
(iii) So I take these references as ceremonial laws, not binding on
New Testament Christians.
(c) After the fall, the Sabbath is a rest, not only from labor, but also
from the toil and misery associated with labor in a fallen world.
Hence its redemptive significance, cf. b., below.
(d) The rest is physical, not merely spiritual. Note emphasis on bearing
burdens, Jeremiah 17:21f., Nehemiah 13:15ff, refreshment, Ex.
23:12, delight, Isa. 58:13.
(e) The Sabbath thus draws our attention to our nature as historical
creatures, the importance of progress, development, goal.
(f) A blessing, Mark 2:27.
(3) Recreation: Does resting on the Sabbath preclude it?
(a) If recreation is pleasurable activity different from one’s daily labors,
then the Sabbath-rest is recreation, par excellence.
(i) Note earlier references to the Sabbath as a “celebration,”
association of Sabbaths with Old Testament feasts.
(ii) The Sabbath a “delight”—Isaiah 58:13f.
(b) As for the propriety of “pleasurable activities” on Sabbath,
Scripture says nothing specific.
170
(i) Isaiah 58:13f. forbids doing your “own pleasure” as opposed to
God’s. “Pleasure” here, however, means “will”.
(ii) “Rest” is clearly not mere inactivity. If “rest” includes activities,
these must be classified as recreations.
(iii) Note reference to “refreshment” in Exodus 31:17, 23:12.
(c) The Westminster Confession forbids on the Sabbath all “works,
words and thoughts about their worldly employments and
recreations. . . .” (XXI:8) because it sees the function of the day
wholly in terms of worship. We shall discuss later [below, D.] the
precise nature of the New Covenant obligation. In the Old
Covenant, at any rate, such a statement would not be appropriate:
(i) Because under the Old Covenant, the day was not spent wholly
in “public and private” worship, except insofar as the
sanctification of the day itself was an act of worship.
(ii) Because the principle of “consecration of labor” requires that we
think and speak about the activities of the six days.
(iii) Because the Old Covenant emphasis is upon rest rather than
worship (at least worship in the cultic sense). The WCF sees
rest only as a ceasing from daily labor to make time for
worship. But in Scripture, the rest is important in itself. It
speaks of “rest” and “refreshment” apart from worship.
(d) Clearly, however, even the Old Covenant forbids, by implication,
any recreation that detracts from the meaning of the day.
(4) Works of Necessity.
(a) God did not intend the Sabbath to destroy man, but to be a
blessing, Mark 2:27. This is characteristic of the law in general (cf.
earlier discussion of the law as way of life).
(b) What is necessary to life and worship, therefore, may be done on
the Sabbath.
(i) Eating, Matthew 12:1-8.
(ii) Arrangements for worship, Matthew 12:5f.
(iii) Healing, Matthew 12:10-13; Luke 14:1ff.; John 5:1ff. Actually,
these passages are better characterized as “works of mercy” [c.,
below], since it was not strictly necessary for these to be done
on Sabbath. However, the two categories do overlap.
“Necessity” is a relative matter. It could be argued that even
eating is not strictly “necessary”. Yet, it is approved.
(iv) Rescuing of people and animals, Luke 14:5. Clearly, also certain
forms of business maintenance are also necessary, by
implication. Not only must oxen be rescued, but also fed,
milked, etc. One might argue that the work of tending animals
is forbidden to a strict Sabbatarian; however, Scripture never
draws this inference. This work, though not absolutely
171
necessary, and even though it involves some Sabbath labor, is
accepted as a godly occupation.
(v) Warfare
(A) It was generally accepted that a people could defend
themselves against attack on Sabbath (cf. I Maccabbees
2:41)—an implication of the last point, as I see it.
(B) Israel circled Jericho seven times on the Sabbath, after which
the walls fell down (Josh 6:15-20).
(C) Jehoiada the priest carried out plot against wicked Queen
Athaliah on Sabbath (2 Kings 11, 2 Chron. 22:10-23:15).
(vi) Travel to consult a prophet (2 Kings 4:23): Shunammite woman
traveled 20 miles.
(vii) Possibility of an alternate day of worship for those who must
travel on business, Num. 9:9-13 on the Passover. See Jordan,
Sabbath Breaking and the Death Penalty, 89-90.
(viii) The “necessity” in view here, then, is not some sort of
abstract “absolute” necessity, but the necessity of those
activities which keep human life n an even keel. It can be only
vaguely defined, and its application requires spiritual
perception. There are many situations in modern business life,
e.g., when some Sabbath work appears “necessary” on the
above criteria. It is difficult to be dogmatic in such areas, but
one must ask if the Sabbatarian does not have a responsibility to
seek to minimize the cases where alleged, or even real,
necessities arise.
b) Authority: the Sabbath as covenant sign, Ex. 31:13, Isa. 56:4, Ezek. 20:18-
30.
The Divine Sabbath is a day on which God authoritatively declares his
victory. Similarly, the human Sabbath, is a day on which the truth of God is
to be declared and which, by its very nature, proclaims the covenant victory
of God.
(1) Declaring God’s acts: Three dimensions of God’s Lordship over time.
(a) Past.
(i) Creation, Genesis 2:3; Exodus 20:11. The victory of God over
the “deep darkness”. (?)
(ii) Redemption:
(a) From Egypt, Deuteronomy 5:15.
(b) Judgment on Canaan (Kline).
(c) The New Testament Lord’s Day as memorial of the
Resurrection.
(b) Present: God’s meeting with us now as his Sabbath intersects ours
[above B.; C.1; C.2.].
(c) Future: God’s eschatological victory (Kline).
172
(2) Declaring our membership in the covenant.
(a) Before the fall, the Sabbath may have conveyed the promise of
blessing within the Covenant of Works (Kline’s Covenant of
Creation). If Adam had obeyed, the blessing would have been his.
(b) The Sabbath was given as a sign to Israel, Exodus 31:13-17; Ezekiel
20:12, 20.
(i) It declares the Lordship of God, 31:13, and, thus, Israel’s
relation to God.
(ii) Sabbath-breaking is not only sin against God, but cuts one off
from God’s people, (v. 14).
(iii) The Sabbath is identified with the covenant, v. 16.
(iv) The Sabbath therefore marks Israel as God’s holy nation. It has
a sacramental function.
(c) The prohibition of Sabbath labor, however, extended to
“strangers,” whose covenant status was ambiguous. (Some were
uncircumcised and, thus, incapable of taking the Passover, or of
sharing the liberation at the Jubilee. Yet, they had certain privileges
and protections under the law, and they were involved in longrange
covenant promises—e.g., Ezekiel 47:22ff.)
(d) The Sabbath’s sacramental function is also seen in the fact that it
signifies and embodies the presence of God’s own rest [above,
C.1., 2.]. On Sabbath and in the Sabbath, God is sacramentally
present with his people.
(e) Revelation 1:10 suggests a sacramental significance for the “Lord’s
day” (Kuriake hemera) in the New Covenant. Cf. the Lord’s
Supper as deipnon kuriakon in I Corinthians 11:20. The “Lord’s
day” bears the same relation to the final “day of the Lord” as the
“Lord’s Supper” bears to the final Supper of the Lamb. Cf. below,
D.4.c.i.c).
c) Presence in blessing and judgment: Man is to imitate God by dispensing
blessing and judgment on the Sabbath. Judgment is seen in the disciplinary
and preaching functions of the church to some extent (Isaiah 6), but the
Scriptural emphasis (as with the divine Sabbath) is on the Sabbath as
mercy. “Deeds of mercy” are presented in Scripture, not as a mere
exception to the general prohibition of labor (as some Reformed treatments
suggest), but as a central function of the Sabbath.
(1) Giving rest.
(a) We are not only to rest ourselves, but also to give rest—to our
families, servants, animals, strangers (Exodus 20:10, 23:12; note
particular emphasis on this point in Deuteronomy 5:14f.).
(b) Thus, the Sabbath is given covenantally—to the whole body, not
just to individuals. [Cf. b.ii., above.] But notice also the ambiguous
status of the “stranger”, b.ii.c).
173
(c) “The poor live as princes for one day a week,” D. Wallace. On this
day, no one gains economic advantage over anyone. As we come
together before God, our essential oneness becomes clearer, and
our priorities are adjusted.
(d) In the system of Sabbatical years, an extension of the weekly
Sabbath, we also give rest to the land. Exodus 23:10f.; Leviticus
25:1ff. This is important to a biblical ecology, but also has
reference to the needs of the poor, strangers, etc. Cf. Deuteronomy
15:1-6.
(e) Note contexts of Isaiah 58:13f., verses 3ff.
(f) The Sabbath law thus forbids God’s people from giving supreme
priority to economic gain or the other rewards of daily life.
(g) As noted earlier, the Sabbath typifies rest from toil, not from sin as
such. Yet, indirectly, it does encourage trust in grace rather than
works. Our weekly rest must be taken, whether earned or not,
because God has given it. The consummation of our week, its
“meaning”, is not the result of anything we have done. Our
“meeting with God” is not by works.
(2) Giving liberty.
(a) The Sabbath commemorates liberation from bondage,
Deuteronomy 5:15. [Cf. above, i.c)-d)].
(b) Release of debts in sabbatical years, release of Hebrew servants,
Exodus 21:1ff.; Deuteronomy 15:1-18; Jeremiah 34:8ff.
(c) Release of debts and return of sold property in the Jubilee,
Leviticus 25:8-17. Note extensive implications of this for the
economy of Israel, outlined in the rest of Leviticus.
(3) Healing: It appears that Jesus healed on the Sabbath, not out of
necessity, but out of deliberate choice. He made this choice, not merely
to provoke the Pharisees, but because of his conviction as to the nature
of the Sabbath: Matthew 12:9-13; Mark 3:1-5; Luke 6:6-10; John 5:1-
17. Even on the Sabbath, God desires “mercy and not sacrifice”
(Matthew 12:8). It is “lawful to do well” on the Sabbath (12:12). The
Pharisees had put such emphasis on the aspect of physical rest that they
had missed this “weightier matter” of the law.
(4) Judgment: 1 Cor. 5:4-5, 11:31-2, 14:29.
d) Summary.
We are called to imitate God in rest, in declaring our union with him, and in
showing mercy. In all of these activities, we declare that God is our Lord,
that our hope is not bound up with our daily activities, but with his
promise. Thus, we do not compete with one another for God’s blessing,
but we share it liberally.
4. Sins connected with the Sabbath (Douma)
a. Working for selfish gain, Neh. 13:15-22.
b. Resting, but plotting ways of defrauding others, Amos 8:5.
174
c. Scribes and Pharisees: defining Sabbath-breaking so precisely as to add to
God’s Word, John 5:9-10.
D. The Sabbath as a New Covenant Obligation.
1. Reformed Views (moving from “least” to “most” Sabbatarian).
a) Calvin (Institutes, II, viii, 31-34) (Reflected in continental Reformed
creeds).
(1) With the coming of the New Covenant, there is no particular day (or
even weekly interval) at which Christians are obligated to abstain from
work and engage in worship, etc.
(2) Such days are shadows which pass away in Christ. Calvin quotes
Colossians 2:17; Galatians 4:10f.; Romans 14:5. He comments, “Who
but madmen cannot see what the apostle means?”
(3) Positively, we keep the Fourth Commandment today:
(a) By laying aside our works and trusting God’s grace for salvation.
(b) By consecrating all our time to the Lord.
(c) By giving rest to servants, etc., and setting aside time for worship.
b) Donald Carson, From Sabbath to Sunday (Zondervan).
(1) As with Calvin, the Sabbath is abolished in the New Covenant: “If we
keep the Sabbath in this dispensation, we are again denying Christ.”
(2) However, the Sabbath is now replaced by the Lord’s Day, which
commemorates the Resurrection and symbolizes the accomplishment of
our rest in Christ.
(3) We are obligated to keep the first day of the week (no other) as a day of
worship. No cessation of work is required.
c) Early Kline (from my student notes in Old Testament Biblical Theology)
(1) Same as i., ii. under c., above.
(2) In the Mosaic Covenant, the emphasis is placed upon rest, rather than
worship, as the essence of the Sabbath command.
(3) Therefore, the Westminster Confession cannot be followed when it
insists that the whole day be taken up in deeds of worship, necessity
and mercy. Rest, and hence recreation, are also appropriate, even
centrally important, to the meaning of the day.
(4) Later, Kline revised his position to argue that in the New Covenant the
Sabbath is a day of worship, but not a day of resting from all labor. He
argued that the rest from labor was part of the “union of culture and
cult” under the Mosaic theocracy. I don’t find that view persuasive,
and I will not discuss it here.
d) The “Puritan” view (Westminster Standards).
(1) The New Testament Lord’s Day is essentially the same as the Old
Testament Sabbath, now properly observed on the first day of the week
rather than the seventh.
175
(2) On this Christian Sabbath, believers must rest “from their own works,
words and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations”
(Westminster Confession of Faith, XXI, 8).
(3) The whole day is to be taken up “in the public and private exercises of
his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.”
2. Sabbath and Creation.
a) A creation ordinance is a divine institution or command which is in effect
from man’s creation until the consummation, such as labor (Genesis
1:28ff.), marriage (1:28; 2:24f.).
b) Creation ordinances do not pass away as the history of redemption
progresses, because they are grounded in man’s nature as:
• created and
• not yet glorified—conditions which exist until the consummation.
c) Exodus 20:11 teaches that God’s blessing of “the Sabbath” in Genesis 2:3
was in effect the sanctifying of man’s Sabbath, and that, for that reason
alone, the Sabbath must be observed, apart from anything peculiar to the
Mosaic economy. [Cf. argument in C.1.a-c., above].
d) Note the “creation sanction” also in Exodus 31:17. Although this ground
of Sabbath-keeping is not mentioned in Deuteronomy 5:12-15, the phrase
“as the Lord thy God commanded thee” clearly refers back to Exodus
20:11 and reaffirms what was said there.
e) There is a lack of evidence for Sabbath-keeping prior to the Exodus from
Egypt, and that poses a problem for the view that the Sabbath is a creation
ordinance. If it were a creation ordinance, ought it not to have been
observed perpetually?
(1) Exodus 16:22-30 shows that Sabbath observance was known before the
giving of the Decalogue, and it presupposes some common knowledge
of the custom.
(2) Many divine laws, clearly revealed, were neglected for long periods of
time: monogamy, the Old Testament sabbatical years and Jubilee, etc.
f) Mark 2:27, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”
(1) Here, Jesus grounds the Sabbath ordinance in the needs of man as man,
not in anything distinctive to the Mosaic economy (Anthropes—generic
man)
(2) “Was made” harks back to the original institution of the Sabbath at
creation—with man on the scene.
(3) In context, Jesus draws a parallel between his disciples, who fed
themselves on the Sabbath, and David’s men, who took the
consecrated bread. He says that the Sabbath was not intended to
frustrate such natural needs, but to meet them. Again, the created
nature of man (needing food and rest) is in view.
(4) Jesus here gives no hint that in his kingdom there will be any change in
the nature of the Sabbath. One might have expected him to do so, by
analogy with his teaching about the place of worship in John 4.
176
g) Mark 2:28, “. . . so that the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”
(1) It is unlikely that “Son of Man” here means simply “man.” Rather, it is a
title of Christ, correlate with his distinctive lordship over the Sabbath.
(2) “Son of Man” does not often focus on the distinctively human nature of
Christ, but in this case, it does. Jesus says that the Sabbath is for man
and that he is Lord of it by virtue of his Lordship over what pertains to
man, that Lordship summarized in the expression “Son of Man.”
(3) In Dan. 7, it appears that the Son of Man is a representative of “the
saints” (verses 18), by whom the saints receive the kingdom (22).
Compare Paul’s description of Christ as second Adam.
(4) Again, Jesus is dealing with his relation to mankind as such. He is not
speaking specifically as Israel’s Messiah, nor of any element of the
Sabbath institution distinctive to Israel.
(5) In claiming Lordship “even” of the Sabbath, Jesus makes a momentous
claim indeed. The Sabbath has always been “the Sabbath of the Lord
your God”. Jesus now places himself in the position of Yahweh. Yet,
even in such a claim, Jesus gives no suggestion that he will abrogate or
substantially alter the Sabbath obligation. Our impression is that he
Sabbath continues in Jesus’ kingdom as before, under his Lordship as
Son of Man.
h) John 5:17: “My father worketh hitherto, and I work.”
(1) Here, Jesus makes a clear claim to deity, for which the Jews seek to kill
him (v. 18).
(2) As deity, then, Jesus claims the right to set the terms for Sabbath
observance.
(3) As incarnate deity, Jesus expresses submission to the Father. He is only
imitating what the Father does, sharing the work of the Father (mercy).
He claims the right to imitate not only the Father’s Sabbath rest, but
also the Father’s Sabbath activity.
(4) Again, there is no hint of any basis for Sabbath observance distinctive to
the Mosaic economy, or any major change to be brought in by Jesus.
The basis of Sabbath observance here is the imitation of God’s rest, the
“creation sanction” of Exodus 20:11 and Genesis 2:3.
i) Hebrews 4.
(1) Here, the “rest” promised to the people of God is traced back to
creation (compare 4:3f., 10 with Genesis 2:3). Note, also, the
references to creation in Psalm 95 (quoted in Hebrews 3:7ff.) as the
basis for the exhortation to hearken and enter God’s rest.
(2) The Sabbath, as we have seen, is a sign of that eschatological rest,
entered by God at creation, promised to man at the consummation
(Gaffin in OPC Minutes of the 40th General Assembly).
(3) Thus, (however one translates sabbatismos in 4:9), the basis of Sabbath
observance is traced back to the creation order, not to the distinctive
provisions of the Mosaic Covenant.
177
(4) Hebrews, incidentally, is much concerned with distinguishing the
permanent from the temporary in God’s purposes. But there is no
indication here that Christ has abolished Sabbath observance .
j) Summary.
(1) Scripture presents the creation order as a sufficient ground of Sabbath
observance. Since that creation structure will not change until the
consummation, the Sabbath obligation continues along with it.
(2) These considerations more or less eliminate the views described as 1.ab.,
above. I say “more or less” because we have not yet considered
some New Testament texts thought to militate against what we have
said here. However, any view placing great weight on those texts must
address itself to the arguments advanced here.
(3) Since the original creation ordinance deals with a cessation from work,
and, since all references to the Sabbath which refer to creation speak in
terms of a rest from labor, view 1.c. must be seriously questioned.
However, we have yet to consider some of Kline’s argumentation
which attempts to account for the data.
3. Sabbath as Redemptive Promise.
a) Although the creation order is a sufficient ground for Sabbath observance,
it is not the only ground given for it in Scripture. Scripture also calls us to
keep the Sabbath because we are the redeemed people of God. Briefly: we
are to remember our past deliverance from toil and to anticipate our future
deliverance.
b) Rest as a redemptive blessing.
(1) Rest becomes a redemptive blessing because of the curse on the ground
and on man’s labor, Genesis 3:17-19. Had man not fallen, rest would
have been a physical necessity and a precious time of communion with
God, but would not have been a specifically redemptive category.
(a) References to man’s labor as toil and misery, Ecclesiastes 2; Psalm
90.
(b) The wicked have no genuine peace, rest: Isaiah 48:22; 57:21.
(c) God gives his people rest: Psalm 127:2; Matthew 11:28 (rest in
taking on a yoke!); Revelation 14:13. Note the descriptions of the
toil in Egypt from which the people were redeemed.
(2) The focus in these passages is not on rest as a relief from sin as such,
but as a relief from toil, sorrow, misery which sin brings into the world.
Labor itself is not sinful, but is cursed because of sin. Similarly, rest is
not itself redemption, but is a fruit of redemption, a blessing brought by
redemption.
c) Sabbath as redemptive rest.
(1) The Sabbath is a present rest which recalls the redemptive rest given in
the past and anticipates the greater rest to come.
(a) Deuteronomy 5:15 emphasizes this, and it is implicit in Exodus 20,
when verses 8-11 are seen as motivated by the preface (verse 2).
178
(b) This is also the major thrust of Hebrews 3-4, though as we
mentioned earlier, the creation sanction is also in view here.
(2) As in the general references to rest [above, b.], these passages do not
picture the Sabbath as a symbol of redemption as such, but as a symbol
of rest from the toil and misery brought into the world by sin and the
curse. The Sabbath, after all, is not a rest from sin, but from labor
(which is good, though difficult). We are not told to sin six days and to
be righteous the seventh, but to work six days and rest the seventh.
(3) If the Sabbath directly symbolized redemption from sin, one could argue
that it is abrogated in the New Covenant since redemption has already
been achieved. But on the contrary: the Sabbath symbolizes something
still future—the final rest from toil. (Cf. Gaffin’s arguments on the
future reference of “rest” in Hebrews 3 and 4.) Thus, the Sabbath is not
superfluous. As a symbol and a foretaste, it remains a great blessing.
(4) Review the passages dealing with Jesus’ relation to the Sabbath: Mark
2:27f. and parallels; John 5:17f.; Hebrews 3:7-4:13. None of these
suggest that Jesus intended the Sabbath to be abrogated or drastically
changed in his kingdom. [Cf. above, 2.f. Cf. also Luke 4:15-28,
parallels, 23:56].
d) Summary: There is nothing in the nature of the redemptive promise that
would suggest some basic alteration in the law governing the weekly
Sabbath. On the contrary, the continued keeping of the Sabbath is
appropriate in the New Covenant as a type and foretaste of the final
consummation rest which is yet to come.
4. “Day-Keeping” in the New Covenant: Romans 14:5; Galatians 4:9ff.;
Colossians 2:16f.
a) These passages represent the strongest argument in favor of Calvin’s view.
On that view, the passages present the Sabbath and all “day-keeping” as
Old Covenant “shadows” which pass away in Christ. The views of Carson
and others can also appeal to these passages as presenting a radical change
in the application of the fourth commandment.
b) Although I favor the “early Kline” view on the basis of the evidence
presented under 2 and 3 above, I am not fully persuaded that adherents of
this view have given a fully adequate account of these texts.
c) There are, however, some considerations which suggest alternative
exegetical possibilities and which weaken arguments from these texts
adduced to prove “less Sabbatarian” views.
(1) Clearly, these texts cannot be used to exclude day-keeping of every sort;
for, elsewhere in the New Testament, day-keeping is required.
(a) The early church met at specific times, obviously, and Hebrews
10:25 makes it clear that attendance at such meetings is not an
optional matter. Thus, in the New Covenant, there are some days
and times set aside for certain specific purposes. [Cf. C.2.c.ii.d),
above].
179
(b) For the Corinthian church, Paul ordains a certain day, the first day,
on which offerings are to be brought, I Corinthians 16:1f.
(c) The “Lord’s day” (kuriake hemera) in Revelation 1:10.
(i) Not the final “day of the Lord”. The context makes clear that
this is a day in John’s present experience.
(ii) It was probably a time of worship, as is suggested, but not
required, by the phrase “in the Spirit”.
(iii) Clearly, it is a day which belongs to the Lord in a special way.
[Cf. deipnon kuriakon in I Corinthians 11:20. For sacramental
sense, see above C.3.b.ii.e)].
(iv) The regular Scriptural reference to Sabbaths as “sabbath of the
Lord” [C.2.b., above] suggests that the Lord’s Day here is also
a Sabbath.
(v) In any case, clearly, this is a special day, one which bears a
distinctive relation to the Lord. It is not proper, in this case, to
“regard every day alike” (Romans 14:5).
(vi) Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho) refers to the Jewish
Sabbath as kuriake. For other church Fathers, kuriake is
Sunday (Didache, 14:1, Ignatius, Magnesians 9:1). Other
references in Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon under kuriakos.
(d) Though the Jews charges Paul with error on matters such as
circumcision and the temple, there is no record of their charging
him with breaking the Sabbath.
(e) Evidently, therefore, Romans 14:5 etc. do not rule out all
observance of days or even make such observance optional in every
case. It thus becomes necessary, on any view, to distinguish in these
passages what sort of obligation is denied and what sort is not
denied. Such a distinction, on any view, will not appear on the
surface. So, it is not a question of one view taking these texts at
“face value” while the other views must engage in elaborate
theological rationalizations. All must do some “theologizing” in
interpreting these texts. We cannot simply take them at “face value”
because it is clear that the first readers of these letters would have
made certain assumptions, certain distinctions that do not appear
evident to us from the passages themselves.
(2) Neither the Romans nor the Galatians passage mentions specifically the
Sabbath. There were many other “days” observed in the Old Covenant
economy, and it is certainly not impossible that the passages refer to
these other days, or even to extra-biblical festivals. Remember that we
must assume the Galatians and Romans capable of making some
distinctions not explicitly noted in the passages. [Above, i.d).]
(3) Rom. 14:5
(a) In context, may refer to days of fasting; but the Sabbath, of course,
is a day of feasting.
180
(b) Note that it says we may abstain from any food; but obviously it is
not saying that we may abstain from the Lord’s Supper.
(4) Galatians 4:10
(a) The specific problem in Galatians is works-righteousness. It is
certainly possible to see Paul arguing here, not against observance
of days as such, but against observance of days (even the Sabbath!)
as a means of self-justification. Similarly: Paul might appear to be
forbidding circumcision in Galatians 5:2f.; but, under other
circumstances, when the issue of justification was not at stake, Paul
not only permitted but performed circumcision, Acts 16:3. More
broadly: Paul’s whole argument in Galatians opposes the doing of
good works for justification. Yet, none of this argument forbids us
to do good works or denies their obligation.
(b) Paul may well have the Jewish Sabbath (Saturday) in mind here.
(5) Colossians 2:16-17
(a) This passage does mention “sabbath” specifically, and it includes
such Sabbaths among the “shadows” which pass away in the New
Covenant. However, sabbath applied not only to the weekly
Sabbath, but to various feast days of the Old Covenant calendar.
The latter were clearly distinguished from the weekly Sabbath in the
Old Testament, and it is not impossible to assume that the
Colossians also made such distinctions naturally. Notice that Paul
speaks of “a” Sabbath, not “the” Sabbath.
(b) John Mitchell made the argument that “feast, new moon and
sabbath” regularly denotes official sacrifices in the Old Testament.
(Report, Minutes of the 40th General Assembly, OPC, pp. 99ff.).
On this basis, the “shadows” would be occasions of Old Covenant
sacrifices, not the weekly Sabbath. (Cf. Hebrews 10).
(c) Or the passage may refer to the weekly Sabbath; but then, the most
likely reference is to the Jewish Sabbath (Saturday). This is the
most common understanding among Sabbatarians and the one I find
most persuasive.
(d) As Douma points out, the “shadows” are no longer in effect; but
there is a positive relation between the OT shadows and continuing
NT ordinances: circumcision/baptism; passover/Lord’s Supper.
Why not also Sabbath/Lord’s Day?
d) Summary: The New Testament texts on “day-keeping”, therefore, do not
present any evidence clearly contradicting strong Sabbatarian views,
though it would certainly help matters if we could reach more definitive
exegetical conclusions on the meanings of these passages.
e) Church-Historical Difficulty: It appears that the early Christians did not
take off work on the first day of the week, or connect Sunday observance
with the Fourth Commandment.
181
(i) The Lord’s Day is honored by early writers, as the replacement
of the Sabbath: Didache, Ignatius (Magnesians), Papias, Justin
Martyr, Dionysius of Corinth, Tertullian. Only Tertullian (200
AD) mentions laying aside daily business on Sunday. The
council of Laodicea (360) is the first to ask Christians to work
Saturday and quit work on Sunday.
(ii) Douma suggests that the Fourth Commandment is not often
invoked here, because of the predominant tendency to read the
commandments allegorically.
(iii) But all regarded the Lord’s Day as a day for joyfully
celebrating redemption, as the OT Sabbath.
(iv) And attending worship meant to some extent setting normal
work aside.
(v) And to keep the day as a Lord’s Day (rather than hour or other
period) naturally entailed a broader cessation from labor. In
time the church came to see this.
(vi) Once this fact became evident, the parallel between the Lord’s
Day and the fourth commandment became obvious, and
theologians came to urge the Lord’s Day as a means of
keeping the fourth commandment.
E. The Form of the Sabbath Under the New Covenant.
The above discussion indicates that the Sabbath continues under the New Covenant
in a form not drastically different from its Old Covenant form. However, clearly,
there are some changes, and we must also specify more concretely those modes of
Sabbath observance sanctioned by both covenants. The general meaning of the
Sabbath has been discussed under C, above. Now, we seek to translate the
Sabbath-symbolism into specific policies particularly for our own period in
redemptive history.
1. Worship and Rest.
a) See D.1., above, for various views.
b) My own position is closer to the“Early Kline view” than to the others.
(1) Clearly, the Sabbath is worship, the consecration of a particular day to
the Lord [C.2.]. In that sense, the Westminster Standards are correct:
the whole day is a day of “worship” because the whole day is to be
consecrated to God in a special way.
(2) However, the Confession is perhaps a bit too quick to equate “worship”
with cultic exercises, thus reaching the conclusion that except for deeds
of necessity and mercy the whole day is to be devoted to such
exercises.
(a) Physical rest on the Sabbath (including recreation) does have a
sacramental (and, thus, worshipful) function as it anticipates our
sharing in the divine rest.
182
(b) If the consecration of the day may be fulfilled only by cultic
exercises, then “deeds of necessity and mercy” are appropriate to
the day only by way of awkward exceptions.
(i) But mercy, as we’ve seen, is a central function of the Sabbath.
This can be seen only if the idea of rest is made more central
than in the Confession: mercy is a giving of rest [C.3.c.]. Thus,
if rest is central, the emphasis on the Sabbath as a day of mercy
becomes intelligible.
(ii) “Deeds of necessity” are also appropriate, because, on our view,
the Sabbath has a manward reference as well as a Godward
reference (Mark 2:27). In Scripture, “deeds of necessity” are
not merely works necessary to keep men alive so they can
worship (Jesus’ disciples might have fasted on Sabbath if that
was the point), but, rather, those works necessary to maintain
man’s full enjoyment of the Sabbath celebration. (Cf. Isaiah
58:13f.)
(3) I do not deny, of course, the appropriateness of cultic exercises on the
Sabbath, only that these are exclusively appropriate. Certainly, no other
day of the week is equally suited to the cultic “meeting” between God
and his people [C.2.]. And no one may take it upon himself to spurn
the assembly (Hebrews 10:25).
(4) Conclusion: The balance of the evidence indicates that under the New
Covenant God requires us to consecrate the Sabbath and thereby to
worship him, not only in cultic exercises, but also in resting from our
labors, delighting in that rest, and sharing it with others in deeds of
mercy.
2. The Change of day.
a) The problem: Apparently, the Old Covenant people of God rested on
Saturday, the seventh day of the week, by divine order. Somehow, the
New Covenant people of God have come to observe Sunday, the first day
instead. But where in Scripture is there a divine command to make this
change? And is it thinkable that such a change would be made without
divine authority?
b) Ambiguity of “change of day”: Before discussing this matter, we must get
clear on what we mean when we talk about a “change of day”. The phrase
is not as perspicuous as it appears.
(1) “Change from Saturday to Sunday”: This could mean merely a change
in the name of the day on which we rest. But certainly, that is not what
is at issue here. There is no divine mandate requiring the Sabbath to
have a certain name. Names for the day rightly vary from language to
language. Whether we call the Sabbath “Saturday” or “Sunday” is a
matter of godly human initiative.
(2) “Change from the day observed in the Old Testament to the day
following”:
183
(a) Since the calendar has changed so often, in so many respects, we
really do not know on what day of our week the Sabbath was
observed in the Old Testament period. Even during that period, it is
doubtful that the calendar remained entirely constant.
(b) Even when it did remain constant, the Sabbath may not have fallen
regularly on the seventh day of the week, though it did occur at
seven-day intervals. Cf. Rushdoony, Institutes, 134ff.
(i) The 15th of Abib, the first month (roughly =April) must be a
Sabbath, for the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The other
Sabbaths are dated from this one, in Lev. 23:6-7, 11, 15-16,
21.
(ii) So the day of the month is constant, the day of the week
variable, like your birthday. It did not fall regularly on
Saturday.
(c) During the New Testament era, the calendar has also changed
frequently, so we do not know precisely which day of our week
was the “first day” of the apostolic church.
(d) Surely, it cannot be argued (especially in the New Testament
period) that there is a divinely commanded calendar. Our inability
to locate the precise day on which the biblical characters rested is
not due to sin.
(e) There is no divinely commanded location for the international date
line. Therefore, there must be some element of human initiative
involved in determining which day of the week will be the seventh
and which will be the first, etc.
(f) The idea, then, of determining the precise day on which the Old
Testament people worshipped and setting aside the day following
that one is an impossible notion, certainly not a matter of divine
command, and not what is meant by “change of day” in this
context.
(3) “Change in Symbolic Weight”:
(a) This, in my view, is the precise nature of the change under
discussion. It is a change in the meaning of the day, a change in
symbolism from end to beginning.
(b) In theory, the early church might have observed the new symbolism
by continuing to worship on the seventh day, but regarding that
seventh day as the first day of a cycle and investing that day with
first-day symbolism. Such an approach, however, would have been
inadequate in their situation, because:
(i) The change had to do with the appearances of the risen Christ
on the day following the Jewish Sabbath. For them to have
retained the old day would have obscured that fact.
(ii) A private change of calendar for the Christians only would have
obscured their witness to the world and especially to the Jews.
184
That witness required observation of a day different from that
of Judaism.
(iii) Thus, a mere symbolic change without actual change of the time
of worship would have been inexpedient in the first century.
Similarly, it would be inexpedient in most situations today. Yet,
there is nothing inherently wrong with worshipping on another
day as long as that day is seen as “first”, with all the symbolic
weight attached to that “firstness”.
(4) The problem then becomes: what divine authorization is there for this
change in symbolic weight?
c) Even during the Old Covenant, there was some Sabbatical symbolism
associated with the “first day” or “eighth day” in a sequence.
(1) The divine Sabbath of Genesis 2:2f. began on the first complete day of
man’s existence. God’s Sabbath (which he intended to share with man)
marked the beginning of man’s life. Our life is the gift of God’s
creation, his completed work, just as our salvation is the gift of God’s
completed redemptive work. Note:
(a) Christ is the second Adam.
(b) Redemption is a new creation.
(2) First-fruits and Pentecost, Leviticus 23:9-21.
(a) Wave-offering on “morrow after the Sabbath,” v. 11.
(b) Meal-offering on “morrow after seventh Sabbath,” v. 16.
(c) Both days are Sabbaths, though the word is not used (14, 21).
“Holy convocation,” “no servile work”.
(d) Symbolism: Christ, the first-fruits of the dead, Pentecost as the
first-fruits of the gospel.
(e) Thus, even under the Old Covenant, God called his people to
observe occasional first-day Sabbaths and, thus, to anticipate the
coming great harvest, the accomplishment of redemption.
(3) Blowing of trumpets, Leviticus 23:24—on the first day of the seventh
month. Trumpets tend to symbolize the approach of the divine
presence.
(4) Feast of tabernacles, Leviticus 23:33-44.
(a) First- and eighth-day Sabbaths, vv. 35, 39.
(b) Symbolism: Christ tabernacling among his people.
(5) Jubilee, Leviticus 25:8-17.
(a) The Jubilee is the fiftieth year in the sequence, following the normal
Sabbatical year, v. 10.
(b) Symbolism: the final rectification, the consummation.
(6) The Old Testament, therefore, pictures the coming (New Testament)
history of redemption in Christ by a series of first-day Sabbaths. One
might even be led to anticipate that when these events are fulfilled, the
185
first day will then achieve more prominence in the life of God’s people.
Possibly:
(a) Even Israel’s seventh-day Sabbath was, in a sense, a “first day yetto-
come”.
(b) Christ brings the first day in principle.
(c) In the consummation, God’s seventh day again becomes fully our
first day, as at creation.
d) The first day in the New Covenant.
(1) The essence of the Sabbath is the “meeting with God” (C.2.). But in
Christ is the definitive meeting point of man with God. He is the
Sabbath.
(a) He calls the disciples, in effect, to drop all their own work to follow
him. Peter and the others, of course, did return to fishing from time
to time during Jesus’ earthly ministry, but notice how often he
interrupts their fishing to draw their attention to himself.
(b) Did Mary, as opposed to Martha, recognize the presence of the
Sabbath in Jesus (Luke 10:38-42)? Contrary to the normal pattern
of guest / host relations, she saw her role to be one of rest, worship
and enjoyment in the presence of Jesus.
(2) First-day resurrection and resurrection appearances, Luke 24:13-51 (36-
47, maybe 48-52); John 20:1, 19, 26.
(3) First-day gatherings of the apostolic church: This is the only day
concerning which there is apostolic example: Acts 2:1, 20:6f.;
I Corinthians 16:1f.
(4) In the post-apostolic period, the first-day gatherings were taken for
granted; they were non-controversial. That presupposes apostolic
warrant.
(5) Conclusion:
(a) Apostolic practice justifies the use of the first day as the Christian
day of worship.
(b) In all probability, the significance of the day is that it is a memorial
to the day of resurrection. This fact, in turn, embraces all of the rich
Old Testament symbolism concerning the first day.
e) Is Sunday the New Testament Sabbath?
(1) Douma:
(a) Both Sabbath and Sunday are special days, commemorative.
(b) Both are feasts.
(c) Both are days of worship.
(d) Both are “made for man.”
(e) Both are violated by selfish labor and by Pharisaic casuistry.
(2) Calvin: since Sabbath symbolizes resting from works righteousness, we
should celebrate it every day.
(a) But God rested only one day.
186
(b) He appointed Israel to observe one day, though in the OT also the
Sabbath symbolized God’s deliverance.
(c) The chief symbolism of the Sabbath is not rest from legalist works,
but rest from the toil that sin brings into the world. We are not told
to spend six days in legalistic works and rest on the seventh.
(3) Days of worship, “holy convocation,” were Sabbaths in the Old
Testament. The day of worship and the day of rest are never separated.
Previous discussion shows the theological necessity of this.
(4) Since there is clearly a change in symbolic weight, from a predominantly
seventh-day symbolism to a predominantly first-day symbolism, under
the New Covenant, and, since that symbolic weight has been attached
to the Sabbath [i., above], the day has, therefore, been changed.
(5) But do we still keep the letter of the fourth commandment, which
specifies a sequence of six days of work and a rest on the seventh?
(a) The New Testament Sabbath is, like the Old, a day of rest between
one six-day period and another. What do we rest from? As in the
Old Covenant, we rest from the preceding six days of work.
(b) The Sabbath in either covenant, then, is both backward looking and
forward looking. It is a memorial to God’s acts in the past and a
consecration of our own past labors, but also an anticipation of the
history of redemption to come.
(c) The difference lies, not in any drastic change, not even a drastic
change of symbolism, but in a change of symbolic weight. The New
Testament Sabbath carries the same symbolism of the Old
Testament Sabbath, but refocuses it to account for its distinctive
historical position: it changes the Old Testament symbolism by
stressing the new beginning made by the finished accomplishment
of redemption.
(d) Thus, we still rest on the seventh day, as the fourth commandment
says—the seventh day from the beginning of the work-week. But
that seventh day is our first day in Christ.
3. Sabbath as a New Covenant Sign.
a) In all ages, the Sabbath is a distinguishing mark of God’s people [C.3.b.;
E.1.b.iv.d)]. Yet, it is given to the whole human race in creation and
probably also in the earliest redemptive covenants (see earlier discussion of
Kline).
(1) Since it “distinguishes” the whole race as God’s covenant people, there
is a sense in which it does not distinguish at all. All are given the
Sabbath as a sign of promise.
(2) Though all have the obligation to keep the Sabbath, few do; that is one
aspect of the covenant-breaking that characterizes the human race.
(3) Thus, Israel is called to be a nation of Sabbath-keepers. The language in
Exodus 31:12ff. does not suggest that the Sabbath is something
unknown to other nations or distinctive to Israel, but, rather, that Israel
187
is to be unique as a Keeper of the Sabbath. In Exodus 20:8, Israel is
told to remember the Sabbath. Again, the impression is that Israel is to
observe a law that has been previously known but not observed.
b) Thus, the sign- or sacramental-character of the Sabbath does not
distinguish the church in the sense that those outside the church are
forbidden to observe it. It is not parallel to baptism and the Lord’s Supper
in this respect. Note again the obligation of “strangers” (Exodus 20:10)
whether circumcised or not (Exodus 12:48).
c) Blue laws.
(1) There is, therefore, nothing theologically wrong with urging unbelievers
to keep the Sabbath, just as we urge them not to kill or steal.
(2) Since we are called, as Sabbatarians, not only to rest, but also to give
rest, it is proper for us to seek in society a slackening of the pace so
that the populace as a whole may rest one day in seven, and also
(incidentally!) to reduce the economic pressure on Christians to break
the Sabbath in order to compete. The Sabbath was made for man
(Mark 2:27)—a creation ordinance written into our being. We need to
rest one day in seven. To promote this is to promote health in the
fullest sense, not just to promote a feature of a particular redemptive
covenant.
(3) For the role of government, see discussion of the fifth commandment.
Generally, I see no objection to the use of the powers of government to
enforce Sabbath-observance, though this may not be desirable in every
situation. Even if one denies to government the right to enforce
religion, one certainly must acknowledge the right of government to
protest religion and to promote rest in society [above, ii.].
4. Sabbath Years and Jubilee
a) These have to do with the rest of the land.
b) So I take it that these were given to Israel as a theocracy, not to the Gentile
nations who have no divine land grant.
c) Though not mandatory, they express important principles (see below).
5. Broader Implications.
a) Ecology.
(1) In the sabbatical years, and in the Jubilee, the land was to rest, just as on
the weekly Sabbath, man was to give rest to his family, servants and
animals. This completes the reference to those under man’s dominion.
Exodus 23:10f.; Leviticus 25:1-17.
(2) Thus, the cultural mandate is not intended as an exploitation of creation,
but a “guarding and keeping”, (Genesis 2:15).
(3) Scripture warns us, therefore, against coveting prosperity in such a way
that we destroy the God-given source of our wealth. God’s people not
only take from the earth, but also give back.
b) Care for the poor.
188
(1) In the sabbatical years, debts were remitted and Hebrew slaves set free,
unless they voluntarily agreed to accept lifetime servitude,
Deuteronomy 15:1-6, 12-18.
(2) One reason for the rest of the land was so that “the poor of thy people
may eat” (Exodus 23:11).
(3) Again, then, we are being warned against precisely the acquisitive spirit
so common in modern America. The Sabbath, in all its forms, means
that we will not put our own wealth ahead of the needs of others. [Cf.
C.3.c.].
(4) Hence, the condemnation of Amos against the Sabbatarians of his day,
8:4-10. They kept the Sabbath, so far as the letter of the law was
concerned, but they eagerly awaited the end of the Sabbath so that they
could resume their oppression of the poor. Thus, they had not begun to
appreciate the meaning of the Sabbath ordinance. The Sabbath
commandment requires a Sabbatarian attitude of heart—a willingness
to serve.
V. The Fifth Commandment: “Honor thy father and thy mother (Deuteronomy: as the
Lord thy God hath commanded thee), that thy days may be long (Deuteronomy: and that
it
might go well with thee) in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.”
WLC, Q124: Who are meant by father and mother in the fifth commandment?
A124: By father and mother, in the fifth commandment, are meant, not only natural
parents, but all superiors in age and gifts; and especially such as, by God's ordinance, are
over us in place of authority, whether in family, church, or commonwealth.
Q125: Why are superiors styled Father and Mother?
A125: Superiors are styled Father and Mother, both to teach them in all duties toward
their inferiors, like natural parents, to express love and tenderness to them, according to
their several relations; and to work inferiors to a greater willingness and cheerfulness in
performing their duties to their superiors, as to their parents.
Q126: What is the general scope of the fifth commandment?
A126: The general scope of the fifth commandment is, the performance of those duties
which we mutually owe in our several relations, as inferiors, superiors, or equals.
Q127: What is the honor that inferiors owe to their superiors.?
A127: The honor which inferiors owe to their superiors is, all due reverence in heart,
word, and behavior; prayer and thanksgiving for them; imitation of their virtues and
graces; willing obedience to their lawful commands and counsels; due submission to their
corrections; fidelity to, defense and maintenance of their persons and authority, according
to their several ranks, and the nature of their places; bearing with their infirmities, and
covering them in love, that so they may be an honor to them and to their government.
Q128: What are the sins of inferiors against their superiors?
A128: The sins of inferiors against their superiors are, all neglect of the duties required
toward them; envying at, contempt of, and rebellion against, their persons and places, in
their lawful counsels, commands, and corrections; cursing, mocking, and all such
189
refractory and scandalous carriage, as proves a shame and dishonor to them and their
government.
Q129: What is required of superiors towards their inferiors?
A129: It is required of superiors, according to that power they receive from God, and
that relation wherein they stand, to love, pray for, and bless their inferiors; to instruct,
counsel, and admonish them; countenancing, commending, and rewarding such as do
well;
and discountenancing, reproving, and chastising such as do ill; protecting, and providing
for them all things necessary for soul and body: and by grave, wise, holy, and exemplary
carriage, to procure glory to God, honor to themselves, and so to preserve that authority
which God hath put upon them.
Q130: What are the sins of superiors?
A130: The sins of superiors are, besides the neglect of the duties required of them, an
inordinate seeking of themselves, their own glory, ease, profit, or pleasure; commanding
things unlawful, or not in the power of inferiors to perform; counseling, encouraging, or
favoring them in that which is evil; dissuading, discouraging, or discountenancing them
in
that which is good; correcting them unduly; careless exposing, or leaving them to wrong,
temptation, and danger; provoking them to wrath; or any way dishonoring themselves, or
lessening their authority, by an unjust, indiscreet, rigorous, or remiss behavior.
Q131: What are the duties of equals?
A131: The duties of equals are, to regard the dignity and worth of each other, in giving
honor to go one before another; and to rejoice in each other's gifts and advancement, as
their own.
Q132: What are the sins of equals?
A132: The sins of equals are, besides the neglect of the duties required, the undervaluing
of the worth, envying the gifts, grieving at the advancement of prosperity one of another;
and usurping preeminence one over another.
Q133: What is the reason annexed to the fifth commandment, the more to enforce it?
A133: The reason annexed to the fifth commandment, in these words, That thy days may
be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, is an express promise of long
life and prosperity, as far as it shall serve for God's glory and their own good, to all such
as keep this commandment.
A. Place in the Decalogue
1. Transition from duty to God, to our duty to man.
a) Note Kline's reservations: no division between two tables.
b) But a striking transition nonetheless:
(1) Worship, reverence to God in I-IV
(2) Parallel (!) reverence to human beings in V. (How reconcile??)
2. The second creation ordinance
a) Worship and Sabbath, I-IV
b) Family, V-VII (Can murder be construed as a family crime? Note Gen.
4:1-15, restriction of vengeance in family context. No corresponding
restriction outside that context, Romans 13:4. In some ways the human race
is a family; in other ways not.)
190
c) Labor VIII-X
(Can “false witness” be construed as a crime against property, an attempt to gain
economic advantage through legal authority?)
B. General Thrust
1. Honor, Kabad: Calvin' distinctions still helpful.
a) Reverence, respect (Existential perspective)
(1) “Fear” used in parallel texts: Leviticus 19:3, Romans 13:7, I Peter 2:18
(2) Parallels language used concerning our worship of God.
(a) Sometimes Scripture contrasts the honor due to God with that due
to any human being, Acts 4:19, 5:29, even father and mother!
Matthew 10:35-37, Mark 10:29f, Luke 14:26f. (Strong testimony
to the deity of Christ.) First commandment!
(b) But in the fifth commandment, reverence to father and mother is a
consequence of our reverence to God.
(i) Deut. “as the Lord thy God commanded thee”
(ii) Leviticus 19:32, Ephesians 6:1ff, Colossians 3:20ff
(iii) Matthew 15:4-6, Mark 7:10ff, Corban
(a) Pledge of money to temple, or legal notice disclaiming
responsibility for parents' debts?
(b) In either case, an attempt to divest self of obligation, by
religious, legal oath. Cf. Exodus 21:17.
(c) Jesus condemns this competition between loyalty to God
and to parents. It actually dishonors by making his word
void.
(c) Need for balanced perception
(i) Roman Catholic reverence of men: latreia, douleia,
uperdouleia, clergy titles
(ii) Protestants + exaggerated reverence for theologians, pastors,
traditions.
(iii) Existential perspective: need to “see as.”
(d) Importance of deference, Gen. 31:35, 1 Kings 2:19, 1 Tim. 5:1.
(e) Seriousness of cursing, Ex. 21:17, Lev. 20:9, Prov. 20:20, 30:11.
b) Submission (Normative perspective)
(1) General: reverence or respect entails hearing with respect, expecting to
learn, being willing to change, not assuming too quickly that we know
more than the one we listen to.
(a) I Timothy 5:1 - not blind obedience: we can exhort. But age is a
factor in determining how we exhort.
(b) I Peter 5:5. In both of these-passages, “elder” may mean simply
“older man,” not necessarily a church officer.
(c) Proverbs: the elderly are assumed to be wise, worth hearing. When
they are not, they are pathetic cases.
(d) Note the negative example of Rehoboam, 1 Kings 12.
(e) Scripture presents parents (and the elderly generally) as teachers:
Deut. 6:6-7, Prov. 1:10, 2:1, 3:1. Accepting the wisdom of parentsteachers
leads to long life (Prov. 3:1-2, 4:10). The concept of
191
parents as wisdom teachers is the logical link between honoring
parents and the promise of long life and prosperity (Douma).
(2) Obedience: This is a particular form of submission, not submission itself.
Sometimes submission entails obedience, sometimes not.
(a) Children and parents: for a child, submission to parents involves
obedience, Ephesians 6:1, Colossians 3:20. But when the child
comes of age, little is said about obedience. “Honor” then takes
primarily the form of respect (a) and financial support (c).
(b) Civil authorities, Titus 3:1, I Peter 2:13f.
(c) Church authorities, Hebrews 13:17, Phil. 2:12, II Thes. 3:14.
(d) Wives, I Peter 3:6
(e) Servants, Colossians 3:20, I Peter 2:18ff (even to the cruel!)
(f) Limit on obedience: we must disobey human authorities when they
command us to disobey God. When we sin against God, we may
not offer as an excuse that we were commanded to do so by lawful
authority. Ex. 1:17, 19-21, I Samuel 22:17ff, I Kings 12:28-30, 2
Chron. 26:16-21, Daniel 6:22f, Matt. 10:37, Luke 3:13f, 14:26,
Acts 4:18-20, 5:29.
(i) Hezekiah followed his ancestor David, rather than his father
Ahaz, 2 Kings 18:3.
(ii) Jesus was not uncritical of his parents (Luke 2:49), but was
subject to them (2:51).
c) Financial support (Situational perspective)
(1) Financial connotation of kabad, Proverbs 13:9, Gen. 13:2, Isaiah 43:23,
Malachi 1:6, 3:8; time, I Timothy 5:17.
(2) NT Obligation: I Timothy 5:4ff (note especially verse 8), Mark 7:10ff.
2. Father and Mother: The Larger Catechism sees the Fifth Commandment as
covering all interpersonal relations: between superiors, inferiors, equals. Can this
rather broad understanding of “father and mother” be justified?
a) Structure of family metaphors in Scripture
(1) Elders, rulers, military chiefs: Ex. 12:21, Duet. 5:23, II Kings 5:13, Gen.
45:8, Isaiah 49:23, Judges 5:7
(2) Prophets, wisdom teachers, church leaders: Ps. 34:11f, Proverbs 1:8,
10, 15, II Kings 2:12, 13.14, I Cor. 4:15, Gal. 4:19, I Thes. 5.12f
(“esteem”), 1 Tim. 1:2, Tit. 1:4.
(3) Older people: I Timothy 5:1
(4) God: Malachi 1:6, Matt. 6:9, Ephesians 3:15
b) Family is the fundamental sphere from which all other spheres are derived;
therefore, family “honor” is the tie that binds all society.
(1) Historically
(a) Adam played all roles: prophet, priest, king
(b) Noah: human race born anew in a single family
(c) Israel: its institutions are elaborations of its original family structure
(d) New Covenant: a new family, Matthew 12:48ff, Mark 10:29f,
Ephesians 1:5, Romans 14: 10ff
192
(2) Developmentally: For young children, the family still performs all the
functions of society: teaching, discipline, employment, religious
leadership.
(3) Logically: “"rule”" in all spheres is similar, I Timothy 3:4, David as
shepherd and king.
c) Similar “honor” required in all authority spheres: reverence, submission,
support, promise of prosperity, “unto the Lord.” Proverbs 3:1-2, Ephesians
5:22ff (note verse 22, 6:5, 7, 9), Colossians 3:23ff, I Peter 2:17 [cf. Exodus
22:28, Proverbs 24:21, Psalm. 82:6].
d) Universality of “honor” in Scripture
(1) Honor attaches to all persons
(a) Romans 13:7 - probably an allusion to fifth commandment; note
reference to other commandments in verse 9.
(b) I Peter 2:13, 17.
(2) Mutual submission in the church
(a) Romans 12:10 - in honor preferring one another
(b) Ephesians 5:21ff - note reciprocal responsibilities.
(c) I Peter lff - note “honor” due the wife in verse 7, promise of
prosperity in verse 9.
(d) I Corinthians 7:2-4 - surprising mutual “ownership”
(e) I Corinthians 11:11 - lest readers draw wrong inferences from
female submission
(3) Pattern of office in the new covenant, John 13:12-17, Matthew
20:20-28, I Peter 3. Unusual: instead of the “inferior” being preoccupied
with the needs of the superior, vice versa. There ought to be an
atmosphere of love in the church entirely different from that found in
any secular institution.
(4) Still, there is a real authority structure. Christ is over the church, parents
have authority over children, husbands over wives. (Ephesians 5:21
does not make husband and wife equal authorities.)
(5) Vs. egalitarianism, authoritarianism.
(a) God places all of us under authority. In itself, this is not demeaning
or oppressive, contra feminism.
(b) God has not made us all equal in gifts and abilities.
(c) But no human ruler should claim divine power over all aspects of
human life.
(d) And rulers should rule for the good of their subjects.
3. Promise of Prosperity
a) For obedience to God, but also for obedience to his representatives,
Colossians 3:25, I Timothy 5:8, I Peter 2:18, 3:8-12.
b) Functions in new covenant as well as old: Mark 10:30, Colossians 3:24,
Ephesians 6:1, I Peter 3:10 (quotes Psalm 34:12, which alludes to fifth
commandment). “Land” is the whole earth now.
c) Does distinguish the righteous from the wicked, I Kings 3:14, Malachi 4:6.
193
d) Not automatic, however. Some faithful people die young. That can be a
blessing, 1 Kings 14:13, 2 Kings 22:20. But the ultimate fulfillment of this
promise is in the life to come.
e) Still, there is blessing in this life for honoring God and his representatives,
Mark 10:29-31, 1 Tim. 4:8.
f) Why is this promise attached specifically to the fifth commandment?
(1) Similar sanctions attached to worship, honor of God, obeying him:
second commandment, Deuteronomy 6:3, 18 (note parallel language).
(2) Point of fifth commandment: attaches same sanctions to God's
representatives.
(3) Extends to sources of life generally: 12:25, 28 (blood not to be eaten);
22:6f (don't take mother bird and eggs). Ecological implications.
(4) Parents as wisdom teachers: following their wisdom brings long life
(Prov. 3:1-2, 4:10, Psm. 1). Compare the function of God’s law “for
your good” (Deut. 6:24, 10:13, 12:28).
B. Sphere-relations: Historical Survey
1. Sophists
a) Ethical irrationalism: moral norms neither true nor false.
b) Ethical rationalism: man is the measure of all things.
c) Irrationalism leads to anarchy in society.
d) Rationalism leads to totalitarianism (“Justice is the interest of the stronger.”)
2. Plato
a) Rationalism: philosopher knows the forms, so he ought to rule.
b) Hence, totalitarianism
(1) No private property
(2) Communal wives, children for upper classes
(3) Eugenic supervision of marriages, births
(4) Compulsory education
(5) Censorship of art, literature
c) Tyranny? But it is supposed to bring fulfillment to each individual.
3. Aristotle: State is more important than the individual, since the whole is more
important than any part. It is the partnership that includes all partnerships.
4. Stoics: similar reasoning, leading to conclusion of world government.
5. Aquinas
a) Doctrine of the state can be established by natural (Aristotelian) reason.
(1) State is highest social whole of which all are parts.
(2) “Subsidiarily:” Let the parts do what they can.
b) If man hadn't fallen, the state would be enough; but because of sin, we need
the church also.
c) The two are distinct, each autonomous in its own realm (nature/grace).
d) Since grace is the higher sphere, the church is superior to the state. It is the
extension of the incarnation itself.
(1) It prevails where conflict.
(2) It instructs the state concerning natural law (since the fall, it has a
superior understanding of nature).
(3) The state may enter the sphere of grace insofar as it helps the church.
194
(4) Boniface VIII: earthly power is delegated to the pope. He may remove a
heretical ruler.
(5) Bellarmine - more moderate
(a) Church and state are like soul and body.
(b) Church's principal responsibility in state is to enlighten rulers,
people on the extent and limits of their obligations.
(c) The church has a right to intervene in temporal matters which affect
the spiritual realm.
6. Maritain (modern, pre-1967 Roman Catholic)
a) State is supreme embodiment of natural reason.
b) Its work: promote the common welfare, maintain law, administer public
affairs.
c) Church is superior because man is spiritual.
(1) That supremacy, however, must be applied “analogously” - differently in
different situations.
(2) In democracy, authoritarianism inappropriate. A more spiritual approach
better befits the church's nature: moral enlightenment.
(3) Don't compromise with moral law, but don't enforce rules too heavy for
the common good.
d) State may help church
(1) By creating conditions of order
(2) By acknowledging God
(3) Specific help (no more than it would give to any other group)
7. Vatican II - now room for all sorts of views in Roman church.
8. Machiavelli (1469-1527)
a) Christianity makes men passive, discourages political involvement; thus
power of the church must be sharply curbed.
b) Law alone makes men virtuous, hunger alone makes him industrious.
c) Until population is purified, the state requires as absolute despot to maintain
strength.
d) That despot may do anything (lie, trick, force) to achieve his ends. He is
above the sphere of individual morality.
9. Bodin, Hobbes, Rousseau: “Social contract.” Once the people have transferred
their authority to the state, the state becomes absolute in authority, irrevocably in
power.
10. Locke: Social contract modified in direction of Rutherford.
11. Anabaptism (Yoder, The Politics of Jesus)
a) Sword-bearing of state is radically incompatible with Jesus' teaching
concerning non-resistance.
(1) Rev. 13: state is satanic.
(2) Romans 13
(a) State is one of the tribulations the church must endure until the last
day (verses 11-14).
(b) Church must relate to state in attitude of suffering love (Chap. 12,
13:8-10), meek submission.
195
(c) “Be subject” - not obedience, but subordination. Christians may
often have to disobey, but must accept the penalty.
(d) “Ordained by God” - ordered by God; so no divine approval
involved.
(e) “Good (4) and “evil” are not obedience or disobedience to the
state, but living according to the standards of Rom. 12.
(f) “Minister of God” - the Christian, not the civil magistrate.
(g) Use of force is evil. True power only in suffering.
(h) Conclusion: state is an evil which God uses for his purpose.
b) So Christians ought not to participate in the state at all.
c) Reply:
(1) Does no justice O.T.
(2) Hard to eliminate element of divine sanction from Romans 13.
(3) Hypotasso does regularly mean to obey out of obligation, not just to
submit to superior force. See Luke 2:51, 10:17, 20, Rom. 8:7, 1 Cor.
14:34, 37, 16:16, Eph. 5:24, Col. 3:18, 1 Pet. 2:13, 18, 3:1, 5, 5:5, Tit.
2:9, 3:1, Jas. 4:7, Heb. 12:9.
(4) Anabaptist reading of “good,” “evil,” and “minister of God” not
plausible.
(5) Is power as force always evil? 1 Tim. 6:15, Rev. 5:5, 12, 12:5, 21:24.
(6) Anabaptists accept authority of parents, husbands, teachers. Why not of
state?
12. Lutheranism: “the doctrine of the two kingdoms”
a) God approves of state, but it is less than God's best.
b) It is an emergency measure to preserve life, order, family after fall.
c) Uses forces unleashed by the fall, but in interest of love.
d) “God's left hand.” Contradiction in God's nature? (Thielicke)
e) Powers of state, then, must be limited.
f) Kingdom of God: based on entirely different principles. Rule only through
word, spirit.
g) Prince can be Christian, but in different order.
h) Cf. law/gospel distinction: threat may never be a means to a godly end.
i) Church and state
(1) State not arm of church, but ought to be Christian.
(2) Ought to protect church, help organize it.
(3) Cannot intervene in purely religious issues.
(4) Erastianism: church under state control.
13. Calvin
a) State is a gracious provision of God. (vs. RC, Anabaptist, Lutheran)
b) Scripture determines the state's prerogatives.
c) Church and state: difference is competence, jurisdiction.
d) Limits of state's jurisdiction: somewhat unclear.
e) Ground of revolution? Generally no, but:
(1) Sermon on Daniel 6:22 - When rulers rise against God, people should
put them down.
196
(2) Last page of Institutes: lesser magistrates must not simply agree to
unjust policies.
14. S. Rutherford (Lex, Rex, 1644)
a) Government is from God, but ratifies by people (Saul, David).
b) King is subject to God's law.
c) In accepting a ruler, the community does not surrender all its rights (as
Rousseau thought), but only the right to do violence. They maintain the right
of self-defense.
d) If the king breaks the contract, the people are free from their obligations.
e) Romans 13 includes “inferior magistrates.”
(1) So the king is not the sole interpreter of the law.
(2) Separation of powers is desirable.
(3) Inferior judges also have power of sword.
15. A. Kuyper (Lectures on Calvinism. 1898)
a) Authority of the state is from God, subject to the word.
b) Its responsibilities: Compel mutual respect, defend the weak, collect taxes or
national purposes
c) Other spheres also sovereign - their rights from God, not state.
d) Thus state must respect their rights - basis of freedom. May not interfere in
their “internal workings”
e) State is “unnatural” institution. (vs. Van Ruler)
(1) Post-fall
(2) Vs. man's natural impulses - replaces organic with mechanical
motivation.
(3) But necessary in fallen world.
f) State under God's law, but not theocracy (Urim)
(1) Must protect church
(2) Cannot extirpate idolatry, since state not competent to decide which
church is right.
(3) Ought to penalize blasphemy, not because of its impiety, but because
God rules over the state.
g) Comments
(1) Not specific enough in reference to Scriptural law.
(2) Limits on state not precise.
(3) Reformed resistance, though, to anarch/totalitarian dialectic.
16. Dooyeweerd
a) More elaborate account of family, church, state as belonging to distinct
spheres, freedom grounded in this diversity under God.
b) Problems: grounding for distinctions, precision on powers, limits of state
power.
c) His disciples, therefore, differ greatly in their view of the power of the state:
cf. the conservative Van Riessen, the socialistic Bob Goudswaard. No “limit
in principle” to governmental interference, because no clearly exegetical
approach.
17. Theonomy (see general discussion of normative perspective)
a) Scripture sets limits on state powers.
197
b) O.T.: church/state distinguished by priesthood/kingship.
c) Emulate OT laws (with cultural and redemptive-historical adjustments).
18. Clowney ("The Politics of the Kingdom")
a) Kingdom of God: the coming of God himself in Christ.
b) Kingdom power - radically different from earthly power.
c) Christ fulfills creation mandate, Matthew 28, Ephesians 4:10, dominion
promises to Israel.
d) Our work: not to seek dominion, but to endure the sufferings of Christ in
bringing the gospel to the world. The glory comes later.
e) The church is the new theo-political form of the kingdom, but radically
different from the O.T. theocracy. No sword.
(1) It is the form of the heavenly city, while the state is the form of the
earthly city.
(2) Sword is for Christians, non-Christians alike (Genesis 9); cf. Kline.
f) Applications
(1) Don't link Christianity to political hopes.
(2) Cultural mandate no longer in force.
(3) God does not promise us skill in world politics, etc.
(4) Don't amass wealth, but give to the needy.
g) Comments
(1) Brings out more clearly than the Kuyperians the distinctive nature of the
church.
(2) Cultural mandate and great commission: see previous discussion.
(3) Secularity of the state.
(a) Scripture does teach that the civil magistrate does not lose his
authority because of unbelief.
(b) But why should we not strive to increase Christian influence in the
state? Unbelieving magistrates may have lawful authority, but they
are hardly ideal.
(4) God does give worldly wisdom to Christians: Proverbs
(5) Christians are promised prosperity; and prosperity is necessary if we are
to help the needy in meaningful way.
19. Frame, “Toward a Theology of the State.”
20. Some conclusions (tentative)
a) Scripture must govern our thinking in this area in detail as well as general
drift.
b) The church is the fundamental form of the kingdom of God. As such it
performs for God's people many functions otherwise performed by the state.
c) Authority of the state is limited:
(1) By God's commission which is limited.
(2) By other institutions, especially church.
(3) By Scriptural norms.
d) Insofar as state is obedient to Scripture, it may be and ought to be Christian.
e) Cautious imitation of Old Covenant Israel is desirable for avoiding
subjectivism, maintaining liberty.
f) Should churches be politically active?
198
(i) The church should proclaim the whole counsel of God, which
often bears upon questions of political debate: freedom of
religion, abortion, care for the poor, race, gender roles,
homosexuality, political corruption, and many others.
(ii) This proclamation should not be limited to church services. It
is appropriate for Christians to write letters to representatives,
write to public media, picket, demonstrate, etc. to make their
desires known.
(iii) Any genuine application of the Word is legitimate in preaching
and teaching. In some situations, it might even seem necessary
to oppose or endorse a particular candidate (Hitler as limiting
concept!), though a church could forfeit its tax exemption if it
makes a partisan endorsement.
(iv) But on many issues, political decisions require expertise not
generally found among preachers:
(A) Federal budget allocations, military hardware, effects of
government on the economy, etc. More humility is
required on such matters.
(B) Making decisions on issues that are not black and white.
(C) Deciding what weight to put on each issue when making a
political decision.
(v) Often, churches can provide better services than government to
alleviate social problems: Christian schools, working with the
homeless, etc.
(vi) Churches need to be alert to attacks on their liberty to proclaim
Christ: anti-church zoning policies, restrictions on religious
speech, draconian restrictions against anti-abortion
demonstrations, etc.
C. Civil Disobedience, Revolution
1. Generally, Scripture is anti-revolutionary.
a) Suffering obedience, even to froward, cruel rulers: Romans 13, I Peter 2,
Revelation 13, Matthew 22:15-22. (taxes were 40%)
b) Emigration is a possibility if matters are intolerable.
2. Nevertheless, we must refuse any command contrary to God's will [I, B, 1, b, ii].
3. Obedience to law is fundamentally obedience to the whole system.
a) We may break a lower law if we believe that a higher law transcends it.
(Often we must, to obtain justice.)
b) Calvin: Lower magistrates must resist tyranny from the higher, for the higher
magistrate is accountable to the law.
c) Sometimes, therefore, a ruler must be replaced.
(i) Best if peaceful.
(ii) In an extreme situation, perhaps violence is justified. Police and
military power should be used not only to quell lawlessness
among the subjects, but also among the rulers.
199
(iii) Vs. anarchy, however. The leadership must either be part of
the governing body already, or must represent a viable
alternative regime. The American Revolution?
4. A government may cease to be a government. (Hard to judge)
a) Losing all standards of justice, becoming like a crime organization (contra
Romans13)
b) Becoming too weak to maintain order.
c) Breaking contracts with the people.
5. If power is being contested, the Christian is under no obligation to support the
previous status quo. Make the decision using biblical criteria of justice.
6. An alternative government must be available. Anarchy is not an acceptable result
The Christian is under authority (Romans13).
D. Punishment
1. Theories
a) Deterrence (of offender or of others in society): Proverbs 22:15,
Deuteronomy 13:11, Cleansings, offerings.
b) Reformation (Proverbs, I Corinthians 5:5)
c) Restitution (most prominent in biblical theft-law)
d) Restraint (quarantine, exile, capital punishment)
e) Taxation (not in Scripture - a non-moral motive)
f) Retribution (talion; basic to all punishment)
2. Problems today
a) Deterrence and reformation have contrary applications.
b) Little restitution in modern civil law.
c) Resistance to retribution (but what basis do we have for punishing anyone,
or “curing” anyone, if that treatment is not deserved?
3. Forms of civil punishment
a) Imprisonment
(1) In Scripture, prison used only to hold people for trial. No prison terms
as penalties.
(2) Prison terms as-punishments are a modern idea designed for
humanitarian and reformatory purposes.
(3) Prison systems are dismal failures on both counts.
(4) Biblical alternative:
(a) Double restitution for theft (strict justice: the criminal loses
precisely what he would have gained).
(b) Incorrigible criminals: execution.
(i) Contempt for society (“High hand”)
(ii) Vs. development of criminal class.
b) Restitution (above)
(1) Strict justice
(2) Benefit to victim
c) Slavery (“household apprenticeship”)
(1) Various forms: enslavement through war, voluntary slavery. We will
consider the enslavement of believers for debt or theft.
(2) Live with family, learn a trade, learn responsible habits.
200
(3) Beating allowed, since lack of motivation.
(4) Set free in 7th year.
(5) Gifts for celebration, establish in trade, Deuteronomy 15:14, 18.
(6) Model of “second childhood”
(7) Slavery in American South
(a) Based on kidnapping, a capital crime in Scripture.
(b) Based on racism
(c) Believing slaves were not set free after six years, nor were they
trained for post-slavery responsibilities.
d) Capital Punishment: objections
(1) Sixth commandment
(a) But Sixth commandment is opposed to unlawful killing
(ratzach). Lawfulness is relative to Scripture.
(b) Background of Sixth commandment is Genesis 9:6 which
provides precisely for the shedding of blood by the state.
(c) The law as a whole provides for capital punishment.
(2) “N.T. prohibits revenge.”
(a) O.T. also teaches love of enemies, limits personal
vengeance, yet sees no conflict with capital punishment.
(b) Note contrast between Romans 12 and 13.
(3) “Capital punishment doesn't deter.”
(a) Deterrence is not the final issue.
(b) Statistics on swift execution policy not available. Swiftness
and certainty are crucial to deterrence.
(c) Clearly the one executed is sufficiently deterred and that is
a gain for society.
E. Women's Roles (Foh, Hurley)
1. In the home
a. Subjection to her husband (Eph. 5:22, Col. 3:18, Tit. 2:5, “headship” =
authority).
b. Joint authority with him (Ex. 20:12, Lev. 19:3, Prov. 23:22).
c. Mutual “ownership” (1 Cor. 7:2-4).
2. In the church
a. I Corinthians 14 context of judging the prophets.
b. I Timothy 2: office of elder in view, not general teaching.
c. General principle: a woman can do anything in the church that an unordained
man can do.
d. Diaconate? Yes, because it is a serving office (Phoebe).
e. Older women as the primary teachers of younger women (Tit. 2:4).
f. Women teaching men and women in non-official capacity, Acts 18:26.
3. In society
a. Does Titus 2:5 require women to be homemakers?
i. The verse seems to presuppose that most women were homemakers,
that being their usual cultural occupation.
ii. But anyone charged with home responsibilities should be busy with
them, as they should be “self-controlled” and “pure.”
201
iii. Prov. 31 implies a wider social role for women, though still centered in
the home.
iv. The calling of Deborah, Ruth, the NT prophetesses, the NT order of
widows, and others indicate that God sometimes calls women to work
outside the home, or without a home-centered focus.
v. It depends on age, gifts, marital status, etc.
vi. Women seem to be uniquely equipped to be the primary nurturers of
young children. See my paper on “The Biblical Doctrine of the Family.”
b. Should female equality be mandated in society?
(i) Although I think women may legitimately work outside the
home under some conditions, I certainly do not think that all
occupations should contain equal populations of male and
female workers. There are good reasons why there are and
should be fewer women than men in many professions.
(ii) Equal pay for equal work? A proper policy must, of course,
take into account the fact that women tend to attain less
seniority than men, tend more often to work part-time, etc.
Better: equal pay for equal value.
(iii) These issues require consideration of individual cases and are
best resolved in the marketplace rather than in government.
PASTORAL AND SOCIAL ETHICS
Lecture Outline, Part Four: Exposition of the Law of God:
Third, Fourth and Fifth Commandments
by John M. Frame
III. The Third Commandment: “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in
vain;
for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.”
Q. 112: What is required in the third commandment?
A. The third commandment requires, That the name of God, his titles, attributes,
ordinances, the word, sacraments, prayer, oaths, vows, lots, his works, and
whatsoever else there is whereby he makes himself known, be holily and reverently
used in thought, meditation, word, and writing; by an holy profession, and answerable
conversation, to the glory of God, and the good of ourselves, and others.
Q. 113: What are the sins forbidden in the third commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the third commandment are, the not using of God’s name as is
required; and the abuse of it in an ignorant, vain, irreverent, profane, superstitious, or
wicked mentioning or otherwise using his titles, attributes, ordinances, or works, by
blasphemy, perjury; all sinful cursings, oaths, vows, and lots; violating of our oaths and
vows, if lawful, and fulfilling them, if of things unlawful; murmuring and quarreling at,
curious prying into, and misapplying of God’s decrees and providences;
misinterpreting, misapplying, or any way perverting the word, or any part of it, to
profane jests, curious or unprofitable questions, vain janglings, or the maintaining of
false doctrines; abusing it, the creatures, or any thing contained under the name of God,
to charms, or sinful lusts and practices; the maligning, scorning, reviling, or any wise
opposing of God’s truth, grace, and ways; making profession of religion in hypocrisy,
or for sinister ends; being ashamed of it, or a shame to it, by unconformable, unwise,
unfruitful, and offensive walking, or backsliding from it.
A. Main Thrust.
1. The Name of the Lord.
a) Functions of names in Scripture (cf. Lordship attributes).
(1) Naming is an exercise of sovereignty (Control).
(a) One who names has control over the person or thing that is named.
The father names the child, the conqueror names the conquered
city, God names his people. God also names himself, indicating his
aseity, his self-control.
(b) It was thought that to know someone’s name was to have power
over that person—hence the belief in verbal magic, the use of
names in curses to bring injury, etc. As with all pagan belief, this
one is parasitic on the truth.
IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 3, Number 52, December 24 to December 30, 2001
154
(i) Knowing someone’s name involves knowing something about
him [cf. ii., below], and hence having a certain advantage in our
dealings with him.
(ii) When we know someone’s name, we can call on him and thus
locate him [below, iii.] and elicit a response.
(c) Sharing one’s name with someone else, then, creates a quasicovenantal
bond. It presupposes a particular kind of trust based on
obligations and expectations.
(d) Remarkably, God shares his name with his people in Scripture.
(i) He reveals it to them, enabling them, not to use it as a kind of
verbal magic, for their own purposes, but rather to call upon
him for help (cf. Proverbs 18:10; Psalm 20:1f.). They have no
power over him, but they may avail themselves of his power for
the sake of the covenant. This is remarkable; it is very much
like having power over God. Cf. Genesis 32:22-32, especially
verse 29.
(ii) He calls the people by his name, identifying his future with
theirs. Thus, his omnipotence will never fail to keep them safe.
(2) Naming is characterizing (Authority).
(a) In the biblical period, a person’s name usually meant something; it
was not, as often today, a mere marker chosen for its sound. Cf. the
interpretations of “Abraham,” “Israel,” the name changes, etc. Cf.
also the use of “name” for “reputation,” 1 Kings 4:31 (of
Solomon), Proverbs 22:1, etc. God’s name is great, Psm. 8:1, 9.
(b) God’s names also characterize him: El Shaddai as “God Almighty,”
etc.
(c) Therefore, God’s name is revelation; it communicates knowledge
of him. And God’s revelation is always authoritative. Both second
and third commandments focus on the revelation of God and its
bearing on our lives.
(d) To deny God’s power violates the name El Shaddai; to claim God’s
favor by our own righteousness violates “The Lord our
righteousness” (Horton).
(3) Naming is locating (Presence)
(a) A name also serves to mark a person; it furnishes a way of locating
a person in a crowd. We find him by calling his name, because
where the name is, he is.
(b) The name becomes closely identified with the person. When
someone laughs at your name, or forgets it, or mispronounces it,
you feel slighted. This is even more true in the broader use of
“name” to mean “reputation” (Proverbs 22:1, e.g.). To injure my
good name is to injure me; to revere my name is to revere me, etc.
(c) God, too, is identified with his name.
155
(i) To praise the name is to praise him, to despise the name is to
despise him, etc. We are saved for “his name’s sake,” Psm.
106:8. Glory is due his name (Psm. 29:2, 66:2, 96:8).
(ii) To say that God’s “name” dwells in the angel of the Lord, or the
tabernacle, or the temple, or Israel, etc., is to say that God,
Himself, dwells there.
(iii) The name has divine attributes: Deuteronomy 28:58, Psm. 8:1,
9, etc. We praise it, call upon it, etc. The name is God himself.
b) Breadth and narrowness of the name.
(1) Specific “names” of God: Elohim, Yahweh, El Shaddai, etc.
(2) The “name” is God’s total revelation of himself to man.
(3) The “name” of God himself [above, a.iii.].
c) Bearers of the name.
(1) Theophanies: the glory, the angel, the tabernacle, and the temple.
(2) Christ, Acts 4:12, Phil. 2:9-11, John 1:14, Rev. 13:5-9.
(3) God’s people.
(4) Creation. (Note here the way Jesus speaks in Matthew 5:33-37, an
exposition of the third commandment, and Matthew 23:16-22. One
cannot, he teaches, avoid the obligations of the commandment by
substituting the name of a creature for the name of God. The reason is
that all creation is inseparable from God, intimately involved with him.
To invoke creation, then, is to invoke the name of God. Cf. Kline on
creation as a reflection of the Glory-cloud.)
d) Implications.
(1) Since God’s name includes his total revelation of himself, extending to
all creation and particularly including God’s own people, this
commandment has unlimited breadth. God’s name is abused, not only
when we misuse a word like “God” or “Jesus,” but also when we abuse
ourselves (note interesting linguistic parallels in Psalm 24:4) or despise
God’s creation. All sin, then, may be seen as violation of the third
commandment.
(2) We can also see how the commandment is fulfilled in Christ. The name
of Christ is the name of God par excellence, the only name by which
we must be saved. He is the final revelation of God. To despise the
name of God, ultimately, is to despise Jesus Christ.
2. “Taking” the Name.
a) We generally take the third commandment as a rule concerning our
language, and certainly that is proper. However, the commandment itself
does not refer to “speaking” or “uttering” the name (amar, dibber), but
rather to “taking it up” (nasa’: bear, carry, lift up).
b) “Bearing” God’s name certainly includes our use of the name in our
speech, but not only that: it includes all of our relationships to the name of
God.
156
(1) God’s people bear God’s name in the sense of carrying it in their own
persons [cf. above, 1.c.]. Note, then, the remarkable parallel to the
third commandment in Psalm 24:4. The reference to false swearing
alludes to the commandment, and “lifted up his soul unto vanity” is a
precise linguistic parallel to the commandment, with “his soul”
substituted for “the name of the Lord thy God.” That very substitution
is a remarkable thing. God is so identified with us that to defile our
own souls is in effect to defile his name. Cf. the second commandment
which, as we have seen, guards the uniqueness of man, particularly of
redeemed man, as “image of God.” The commandments always have an
existential reference.
(2) Note also our relationships to the name of God in creation and in Christ.
All created things will either be “lifted up” to God or to vanity.
(3) Note, therefore, the narrowness and breadth of the commandment. A
commandment about false swearing but, by implication, about all of
life.
3. “Vanity”.
a) The normal meaning of the Hebrew term is “emptiness,”
“purposelessness”. On that basis, the commandment forbids us to use
God’s name for unworthy purposes.
b) Some have suggested that in this context the term ought to mean “falsely,”
since that is emphasized in parallels such as Leviticus 19:12, Psalm 24:4.
Linguistic evidence for that use is lacking, however, and the hypothesis is
really unnecessary. Falsehood is one kind of vanity, granted the first
interpretation. Thus, even on the first view, Leviticus 19:12 and Psalm
24:4 present valid applications of the commandment.
c) Similarly, it could be argued that vanity is a form of falsehood. If you use
God’s name in a pointless or worthless way, you are falsifying it,
exchanging it for a lie (cf. Romans 1).
d) Thus, the argument between the two interpretations is somewhat academic.
e) On either view, we note again the breadth of meaning here. Not only are
we forbidden to make false statements using God’s name, but also to make
any use of it which is unworthy of God. I Corinthians 10:31.
4. The sanction: “for the Lord will not hold him guiltless.”
a) Blasphemy is considered a particularly serious crime in Scripture. The
death penalty is administered for it—even to “strangers,” Leviticus 24:15f.
Cf. the penalty for cursing parents, Exodus 21:17. The crucifixion of Christ
was based on a charge of blasphemy. The worst sin noted by Jesus himself
was the “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 12:22-32; Mark
3:22-30). This somberness, then, is reflected here in the lack of a blessing
sanction.
(i) Douma, 80: “willfully misunderstanding and branding as a
devilish act what in fact comes from the Holy Spirit.” The Jews
157
had seen with their own eyes the work of God, in such a way
that it could not have been missed.
(ii) Compare Heb. 10:26-31.
(iii) Though said to be against the Spirit, the focus of this sin is the
Spirit’s witness to the work of Christ. It is in effect blasphemy
against the holy name of Jesus.
b) The curse formula does not mean that forgiveness is excluded. The same
curse attaches to every sin and is borne by Christ on behalf of his people.
However, that blasphemy which, by its very nature, rejects forgiveness and
rejects it unalterably will never be forgiven (Matthew 12:22-32, parallels).
5. Relation to First Two Commandments (see chart).
a) The first commandment requires us to worship God exclusively; the second
requires us to worship him only according to his word. The third requires
us, in our worship, to make a right use (nasa’) of the word (the name). It is
not enough to have God’s revelation; one must use it rightly.
b) We can, then, see a parallel with the “three perspectives.” The first
commandment sets forth the situational perspective, the basic relation
between the one God and his creatures. The second sets forth the
normative perspective, the basic revelation by which they will be governed.
The third sets forth the existential perspective, demanding a right
application of that revelation.
c) Note, then, a certain trinitarian structure: the one God, the word he speaks,
and the application of that word (always associated in Scripture with the
Holy Spirit). We could summarize by saying that God demands
wholehearted covenant loyalty to him in the fullness of his triune being,
honoring his triune works. The first three commandments together are a
“love command,” requiring exclusive covenant loyalty to the triune God.
d) The three together (as well as individually) encompass, in a striking way,
the totality of human life. Love for God is demanded in our basic heartorientation
[I.], in word (our life-norms) [II.], and in deed [III.—the act of
application]. In III, the word is applied to the heart as to all of life,
completing the circle. Of course, each, obeyed seriously, involves
obedience to the others.
B. Positive Uses of the Name of God.
We have seen that the commandment applies to all of life. Here, however, we shall
focus on some of the matters to which the commandment applies more narrowly
and specifically, namely, the uses of the divine name in speech. (Even these, to be
sure, have a tendency to broaden out, as we shall see!) As a convenient division, let
us consider the uses of God’s name in terms of man’s kingly, prophetic, and priestly
functions (reflecting God’s control, authority, covenant solidarity). These uses are
oath (kingly), confession (prophetic), and blessing (priestly).
1. Oaths (kingly function).
a) Concept: In an oath, we call God to witness concerning the truth of a
statement (“assertory”) or promise (“promissory”). We call upon God to
158
use his power against us if we lie, hence the emphasis on the power of an
oath (kingly function). Cf. Hebrews 6:16.
(1) As such, an oath is an act of worship. It has a godward reference. The
honor of God is primarily in view in the third commandment, the
dangers of false oaths to our fellow men being central in the ninth
commandment. In this regard, cf. Deut. 10:20-21, Isaiah 45:23, 19:18,
65:16; Deuteronomy 6:13; Psalm 63:11, where swearing by God’s
name is a mark of those who belong to God. (Notice how this “specific
application” of the third commandment itself becomes in Scripture a
figure for the whole covenant relation. In Romans 14:11 and
Philippians 2:10, the “swearing” is equated with confession and the
latter with recognition of Christ’s lordship.)
(2) An oath also has a manward reference. It is a way of maintaining
stability, dependability, in a fallen world. Under certain circumstances,
a man’s word was to be accepted without corroboration on the basis of
an oath (Exodus 22:10f.). The oath has always been a vital aspect of
the administration of civil law. Where the oath is despised, the result is
government corruption, civil injustice.
(3) It is possible to be under oath in effect even without uttering the name
of God, although in general, oaths involve such utterances.
(a) Adjuration: In an adjuration, we are in effect put under oath by
another party, generally, someone in authority. Cf. Joshua 7:19;
Matthew 26:63f.
(b) Solemn attestation, without specific use of a divine name: Genesis
42:15, 31:53; Exodus 24:7; Deuteronomy 27:11ff.; I Samuel 1:26;
Joshua 24:19-22; Jesus’ “Verily, verily.”
(c) Such borderline cases help us more clearly to see how, in a sense,
the believer is always under oath. Cf. b.iv., below.
(4) A vow is a promise to God that we will perform a particular act. It is
therefore, in effect, an oath-commitment.
b) Obligation.
(1) Scripture commands us to swear in God’s name: Exod. 22:10-11,
Deuteronomy 6:13, 10:20; Isaiah 65:16; Jeremiah 12:16; cf. Romans
14:11; Philippians 2:10.
(a) The point is not that we ought to take oaths every so often as a
means of grace; rather, it is that when an oath is necessary, it ought
to be taken in the name of the true God, rather than in the name of
another god.
(b) But once we come to believe in the true God, taking an oath is an
act of religious worship (Deut. 10:20, Isa. 19:18), a way of
confessing our faith in the true God.
(2) Examples.
(a) God himself: Genesis 22:16 (Hebrews 6:13-17), 26:3, Psalm 89:3,
49, 110:4, 132:11; Jeremiah 11:5; Ezekiel 33:11; Luke 1:73.
159
(b) Jesus accepts the adjuration, Matthew 26:63f., gives solemn
attestations (“verily”).
(c) Paul: Romans 1:9, 9:1f.; II Corinthians 1:23, 11:31; Galatians 1:20;
Philippians 1:8; I Thessalonians 2:5, 10, 5:27.
(d) An angel in Rev. 10:5-6.
(e) Many other biblical characters: Genesis 14:22ff., 21:23f., etc.
(f) Common practice, Heb. 6:13-20.
(g) Many examples of vows: cf. also Psalm 22:25, 50:14, 65:1, etc.,
where the paying of vows is a synecdoche for the whole of
religious worship.
(3) Oath-bound commitment is the essence of covenant obligation and
religious confession: Romans 14:11; Philippians 2:10.
(4) The prohibition of oaths in Matthew 5:33-37; James 5:12.
(a) In view of (1) –(3) above, it would be strange indeed if these
passages intended to forbid oaths as such. Nowhere else in
Scripture is there any hint of rebuke to anyone for the mere act of
taking an oath (though, of course, there are examples of false
oaths, unwise oaths, etc.) The fact that oath-bound commitment is
essential to our relation with God is a particularly telling datum.
The fact that God himself swears is also important—more
important than it may appear on the surface. It might be argued that
God’s right to swear does not imply our right to swear. On the
other hand, in the context of Scripture, it is clear that God has far
less reason to swear than we do. If he, who is perfectly trustworthy
and self-attesting, sometimes confirms his word with an oath,
surely, there are times when we ought to do the same.
(b) The context of Matthew 5:33-37 (cf. 23:16-22) suggests that Jesus
is opposing a particular misuse of the oath, namely, the use of
substitutes for the divine name to escape full obligation. Cf. below,
c., also Murray, Principles, 168-174. James may be summarizing
Matthew 5:33-37 to people already aware of that context. “Do not
swear at all” means do not swear at all by heaven, earth, Jerusalem,
etc.
(c) In Rabbinic sources, with strikingly similar language, the distinction
is made between frivolous and unnecessary oaths on the one hand
and solemn oaths on the other. The former are forbidden with the
formula “Let your yes be yes and your no, no.” Jesus, doubtless,
has this sort of problem in mind.
(d) So these passages in effect place us under continuous oath. Our yea
is to be yea and our nay, nay. We are not to use the institution of
the oath as an excuse for carelessness with the truth when not
under oath (cf. the child’s “I said I would, but I didn’t promise.”)
All of our speech ought to partake of the quality of “solemn
attestation” [above, a.iii.b)]. The use of the oath ought, at most, to
160
be an accommodation to a fallen situation. More on this under the
ninth commandment.
c) Oaths Resulting in Sin.
(1) Oaths with wrong content (normative).
(a) Idolatrous: in the name of a false god, Exodus 23:13, cf.
Deuteronomy 6:13, 10:20, etc.
(b) Pledging something unlawful, 1 Sam. 25, Matthew 14:7; Acts 23:12.
(i) It is often argued that general oaths of secrecy fall under this
category—i.e., pledges to secrecy without knowledge of what
is to be kept secret. Vs. secret societies, etc.
(ii) Similarly, oaths required in secret societies and labor unions to
put the interests of the organization above all others—vs. the
biblical “chief end of man.”
(c) The Catechism says that we should not even keep an existing oath
if it is “of things unlawful.” When an existing oath requires us to
sin, it at that point becomes an unlawful oath and we are released
from keeping it. An oath cannot compel to sin.
(i) Scripture does tell us to keep oaths “to our own hurt” (Psm.
15:4), but not to the hurt of others, or injury to the name of
God.
(ii) An oath of office may not require us to obey unjust orders from
governmental superiors (Nazis, etc.)
(iii) An oath of secrecy may not compel us to keep secret matters
that God requires us to reveal.
(2) Oaths not kept (situational).
(a) Lying oaths, perjury, Leviticus 19:12; Psalm 109:17-19, cf.
Deuteronomy 23:21-23; Psalm 66:15f.; Mark 14:71.
(b) Reneging on a vow which involves self-sacrifice, Psalm 15:7; Acts
5:4.
(c) Breaking vow to enemies: Gibeon, Josh. 9:1-27, 2 Sam. 21:1-14.
(d) Evasions through use of substitutes for God’s name. [Cf. A.1.c.,
above; also Murray, 168-174].
(3) Oaths arising from wrong attitudes (existential).
(a) Rash, foolish oaths, I Samuel 14:24f.; Judges 11. On the difficult
question of Jephthah’s vow, I follow (with some hesitation) the
view that Jephthah dedicated his daughter to serve God in
perpetual virginity. [Cf. Keil and Delitsch, ad loc.]
(b) Presumptuous swearing, Isaiah 48:1f.—i.e., assuming our right to
swear in God’s name despite unrepentant sinfulness.
(c) Over-frequent or trivial swearing, [cf. above, b.iv.b) & c). Also, iv.,
below].
d) Trivialization of God’s Name.
161
(1) In an oath, we invoke the name of God to solemnize an affirmation or
promise. In the last section c), we saw how certain oaths violate the
solemnity and sanctity of the divine name, though all oaths assume that
solemnity and appeal to it. However, it is also possible to sin by
renouncing this solemnity altogether—by frivolous or trivial use of
God’s name. Such use of God’s name is, in one sense, the opposite of
the oath commanded in Scripture.
(2) Trivial cursing.
(a) “Damn,” “Hell,” etc., even “My God,” “Jesus,” used casually in our
society, as mere exclamations.
(b) “Darn,” “gosh,” “golly,” “jeez:”
(i) Many are not even aware of the religious origins of these terms.
(ii) If used in serious oaths, they would be a form of attempted
mitigation (Matt. 23:16-22) condemned by Jesus; but most
people don’t take them as such.
(c) There is here usually no explicit intention to blaspheme, as in the
curses condemned in Scripture. So we should not consider them to
be as serious sins as self-conscious blasphemies.
(d) Still, such curses are a symptom (Douma) of the prevalent unbelief
in society, unbelief that we cannot take casually. Were our society
fully Christian, God’s name would be taken much more seriously.
(e) It is impossible to rebuke every such curse that we hear. (Generally,
it is impossible to rebuke every sin that we observe; there are just
too many.) But we should be alert to opportunities to use these
moments in witness.
(3) Irreverence
(a) T-shirt: “This blood’s for you.” Wrong?
(b) Irreverence can be in the mind of the beholder. The wearer might
have mainly an evangelistic motive: a holy desire to begin a
conversation with someone about Christ. Perhaps there are things
to be said both pro and con here.
(c) Use of popular musical styles in worship. See my CWM.
(4) Does this principle rule out all use of God’s name, even of God’s
revelation, in humor?
(a) Ephesians 5:4 condemns “foolish talk” and “coarse jesting,”
probably describing pointless silliness and gutter-type language. All
humor, however, cannot be shown to have these qualities.
(b) There is humor in the Bible, but the jokes are too old and familiar
for us to appreciate. Matthew 19:24, 23:24; Acts 12:12-16, etc.
(c) Humor has constructive, even serious purposes at times: to display
graphically the Creator / creature distinction, etc. Even as sheer
entertainment, it can have a recreative function. “Let there be light”
uttered while pulling the light switch—shows, in an ironic way,
both the analogy and the ridiculous disparity between man’s
162
technology and God’s. Scripture always speaks well of a
“cheerful,” “merry” or “glad” heart: Proverbs 15:13; II Corinthians
9:7, etc.
2. Confession (prophetic function): In confession, we acknowledge God’s
covenant name as our own, ourselves as part of the covenant. In confessing
before men, we also proclaim to them the word of the Lord.
a) Obligation (note connection with salvation): Matthew 10:32; Romans
10:9f; I Peter 3:15.
b) Related Sins.
(1) Concealing our allegiance, John 12:42.
(2) Denying Christ, Matthew 26:69ff.
(3) Heresy.
(4) Blasphemy, Psalm 74:10-18; Isaiah 52:5f.; Revelation 16:9, 11, 21.
(a) Punished by death, Leviticus 24:16, even if a “stranger.”
(b) The most serious sin: blasphemy against the Spirit, Matthew 12:31,
persistent, defiant refusal to acknowledge God in the face of the
clearest knowledge.
(5) Giving occasion to pagans to blaspheme, 2 Sam. 12:14, Ezek. 36:20-32.
(6) Confessing God in a context in which it will likely lead only to ridicule
and blasphemy. (Douma: sometimes “speech is silver, but silence is
golden”), Matt. 26:63, 27:14.
(7) Invoking God’s name in support of causes without biblical warrant, 1
Phil. 3:6, Tim. 1:13. “God on our side.” “This is God’s will.”
Afrikaners, Nazis.
(8) Using Scripture to support heresy, 2 Pet. 2:1-3, 3:16.
3. Blessing (priestly function): Given to God by man, the blessing is equivalent to
praise; directed to other men, it identifies them with God’s name and thereby
declares there right to inherit the covenant promises. It is a form of prayer for
them in the name of God as well.
a) Obligation: Scripture calls us both to bless God’s people and to intercede
for all men in prayer.
b) Related Sins:
(1) Reviling man, Matthew 5:22; Ephesians 4:29; James 3:9.
(a) To mock the poor is to insult his maker, Prov. 17:5. Cf. Cursing the
deaf, Lev. 19:14.
(b) The passages do not place a general condemnation on strong
language. The prophets and apostles frequently use strong language
against their hearers. Remarkably, Jesus Himself, having
condemned some for using moros (Matthew 5:22), uses the same
term against the Scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 23:17, 19). [Cf.
Paul, Galatians 1:8f].
(c) Evidently, just as there is a righteous and an unrighteous anger (cf.
sixth commandment), so there is an unrighteous and a righteous use
163
of strong language. The question is whether we are venting our
own (murderous) hatred or being zealous for the honor of God.
(2) Incantations, use of God’s name to control him, Acts 19:13-17.
C. Language in Literature and Drama.
1. I have sometimes been asked, particularly in the light of Ephesians 4:29,
whether it is ever legitimate for a Christian actor to utter blasphemies, e.g.,
while impersonating a character, or for a Christian writer to put foul language
in the mouth of a character.
2. Ephesians 4:29 clearly does not mean to forbid the mere physical act of uttering
an unedifying expression. Scripture itself records (and when we read Scripture,
we read) the unedifying and even blasphemous words of God’s enemies. Of
course, it records these for our edification: unedifying words in an edifying
context.
3. The question, then, becomes: does a literary or dramatic blasphemy serve an
edifying purpose in its larger context? It does, I think, when (as Scripture) it
aims to portray unbelief as unbelief—when its portrayal is, on Christian
criteria, true.
4. On this criterion, there ought, probably, to be more blasphemy and vulgarity in
Christian drama than there usually is. These sins utterly pervade our society
today, and any truthful portrayal of that society ought to be consistent with
that pervasiveness.
5. We are not, however, on this basis, to wallow in filth for its own sake. Whether
we like it or not, that is what our sinful nature would have us do. And we have
great skill in rationalizing such desires.
6. The point is to present sin in its true colors—as something ugly, destructive
and, in a certain way, ridiculous. That is the challenge to the Christian artist.
7. “Method” acting—where an actor motivates himself to portray, e.g., hate by
generating feelings of hate within himself will often be forbidden to the
Christian. Yet, I suspect that morality and dramatic effectiveness are not
thereby opposed to one another. A good artist must maintain both empathy
with and distance from his subject, as did Jesus when he loved and suffered for
sinners, without losing his own identity as the sinless, divine savior. A
“method” which insists on identification without distance cannot express
redemptive involvement.
IV. The Fourth Commandment: “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days
shalt
thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is a sabbath unto the Lord thy God:
in
it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested
the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.” (Exodus
20:8-11). In Deuteronomy 5:12-15, it reads: “Observe the sabbath day, to keep it holy, as
the Lord thy God commanded thee. Six days shalt thou labor . . . nor thy stranger that is
within thy gates; that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou. And
thou shalt remember that thou was a servant in the land of Egypt, and the Lord thy God
164
brought thee out thence by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm: therefore the Lord
thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.”
WLC, Q116: What is required in the fourth commandment?
A116: The fourth commandment requires of all men the sanctifying or keeping holy to
God such set times as he hath appointed in his word, expressly one whole day in seven;
which was the seventh from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ,
and the first day of the week ever since, and so to continue to the end of the world;
which is the Christian sabbath, and in the New Testament called The Lord's day.
Q117: How is the sabbath or the Lord's day to be sanctified?
A117: The sabbath or Lord's day is to be sanctified by an holy resting all the day, not
only from such works as are at all times sinful, but even from such worldly
employments and recreations as are on other days lawful; and making it our delight to
spend the whole time (except so much of it as is to betaken up in works of necessity
and mercy) in the public and private exercises of God's worship: and, to that end, we
are to prepare our hearts, and with such foresight, diligence, and moderation, to
dispose and seasonably dispatch our worldly business, that we may be the more free
and fit for the duties of that day.
Q119: What are the sins forbidden in the fourth commandment?
A119: The sins forbidden in the fourth commandment are, all omissions of the duties
required, all careless, negligent, and unprofitable performing of them, and being weary
of them; all profaning the day by idleness, and doing that which is in itself sinful; and by
all needless works, words, and thoughts, about our worldly employments and
recreations.
A. Place of the Fourth Commandment in the Decalogue (recall chart preceding
discussion of First Commandment).
1. Despite Meredith Kline’s refutation of the traditional “two table” notion, there
is a broad progression in the Decalogue from commandments focusing on our
relation to God to others focusing on our relation to one another.
2. In this progression, the Fourth Commandment is something of a transition from
the one focus to the other.
a) Like I-III, it stresses the nature of God’s covenant with us and demands a
certain kind of worship.
b) Like V-X, it emphasizes our obligation to love one another, to give rest as
well as to rest ourselves, to relativize social distinctions.
3. The Fourth Commandment is more specific than I-III on the kind of obedience
required. It begins the recapitulation of the creation ordinances which
continues through X.
B. The Divine Sabbath (the rest of God himself from his creative work—Genesis
2:2f; Exodus 20:11).
1. The divine Sabbath is essentially a celebration of God’s lordship over creation.
165
a) At the start of the divine Sabbath, God’s creative work (including his
creation of man) was finished. It was at this point, then, that the creator
first stood over against a finished creation. The covenant-lordship relation
was fully established by creation itself. The divine Sabbath, then, was not
enjoyed in the isolation of intra-divine life. From its beginning, it was the
celebration of a relation.
b) Meredith Kline (“Primal Parousia,” WTJ, Spring, 1978, 259ff.) describes
the divine Sabbath as an “enthronement,” citing parallels with God’s
enthronement in the microcosmic “temple-house”. The enthronement
follows divine victory and judgment (over the deep and darkness) and the
creation of the world as his royal dwelling.
2. The Sabbath celebrates the lordship of God in its three aspects.
a) Control: Celebrates the divine victory—the “penetration of the darkness by
the divine theophanic glory” (Kline, 263).
b) Authority: The Sabbath begins with the declaration that creation is good
and finished. Cf. Kline, 261.
c) Presence in blessing and judgment:
(1) Presence of the glory-theophany is his completed temple.
(2) Judicial approbation [b., above], self-glorifying; cf. union of Sabbath
with “Day of the Lord”—the day of judgment (and grace) (Kline). On
this day, he judges all that he has made, and declares it good.
(3) When God blesses his own Sabbath, he blesses us. [cf. B.3.; C.1.,
below]
3. The divine Sabbath was offered to Adam and Eve.
a) In Hebrews 3-4, the divine Sabbath is an eschatological promise,
representing the consummation of redemptive blessing that follows the last
judgment. God entered the Sabbath at the end of creation, and his
redeemed are to enter it at the end of this age. Note 4:4.
b) Since from the beginning the Sabbath celebrated a relation [1.a., above], it
must have involved Adam and Eve in some way.
c) Since the account of the divine Sabbath follows the “cultural mandate”, the
command to work, it is hard to avoid the assumption that in the divine
Sabbath God was promising rest to the man and woman as the fulfillment
of this labor: had they completed the cultural mandate obediently, they
would have entered the rest of God.
d) This inference is only a probable one; so far as I can tell, no passage of
Scripture sets forth these concepts in so many words. However,
throughout Scripture, the divine Sabbath does function as an
eschatological promise, and it would be surprising if it did not also have
that function before the fall.
C. The Human Sabbath: Its Meaning.
1. Human Sabbath and Divine Sabbath.
a) When God blessed his own Sabbath in Genesis 2:3, he did it with man in
view [cf. B.1.a., above; also 3.b.].
166
b) When God blessed his own Sabbath, he did it as an example for man
(Exodus 20:11): Israel is to cease from work because God ceased from
work.
c) When God blessed his own Sabbath, he also blessed man’s. Exodus 20:11
clearly refers to the human Sabbath, which is the subject of the fourth
commandment.
d) Exodus 20:11 seems to assume some sort of unity between the divine
Sabbath and the human Sabbath, even though the former is unending and
the latter is a weekly occurrence.
(i) “The” Sabbath referred to in the verse is the human Sabbath
[above, c.], but also the divine Sabbath (context of Genesis
2:3).
(ii) Ex. 20:11 says that God blessed the human Sabbath in Gen. 2:3.
e) We shall see that the human Sabbath is a covenantal sign and seal, a
sacrament in effect. In that framework, we could perhaps speak of the
divine Sabbath as “present” in the human sacrament, as God is present in
Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. In the weekly Sabbath, we not only
symbolize, but also enjoy by anticipation the divine Sabbath promised to
God’s people.
f) At the very least, the human Sabbath is a replica of the divine, as man
himself is made in the image of God. As man himself is made to reflect
God’s glory, so the human Sabbath is made to reflect the glory of the
divine Sabbath.
2. The Human Sabbath as a Meeting with God.
a) On the Sabbath, God’s rest and man’s intersect [1., above]. God who rests
from his creative labors invites his creatures to share his rest in anticipation
of their final rest.
b) If we share God’s rest, then he must share ours. As his day belongs to us,
so ours, our Sabbath, belongs to him. Our human Sabbath is set aside as
his day.
(1) Exodus 20:8: We are to “remember” (active memorializing, not just
recollecting) to keep the Sabbath “holy” (i.e., set apart, given over to
him). Cf. Exodus 31:13-17; Jeremiah 17:22; Isaiah 58:13; Ezekiel
44:24. To “keep” God’s Sabbaths, Lev. 19:3, 30, Isa. 56:4, Ezek.
20:10.
(2) Verses 9, 10: “Thou shalt labor . . . .” “do all thy work,” sharply
contrasted with “the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” The six days are
for our work; the seventh exclusively for him.
(3) The contrasts between our pleasure and his day are frequent in the Old
Testament. Note, e.g., Isaiah 58:13: “If thou turn thy foot from the
Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day. . . .” (note
repetitions of these contrasts in the passage).
167
(4) That the human Sabbath belongs particularly to the Lord is to be
expected, since it reflects the divine Sabbath, a celebration of God’s
Lordship, B.3.
(5) Note the association of Christ with the Sabbath as its Lord: Matthew
12:8, parallels, John 5:16f.
(6) The “Lord’s day,” Revelation 1:10—D., below.
(7) As a covenant sign [3.b., below], the Sabbath is a mode of God’s
presence among his people.
(8) Parallels between Sabbath and temple: Leviticus 19:30, 26:12; Matthew
12:5f.
(9) Parallel between the disciples’ Sabbath behavior and David’s holy
soldiers, the holy labors of priests: I Samuel 21:1-6; Matthew 12:3ff.
(10) Sabbath legislation emphasizing the sanctification of the Sabbath
(Exodus 31:12-17) follows legislation on the sanctification, the
tabernacle and priesthood (25:1-31:11).
(11) Note relations between the Sabbath as the divine day of judgment,
association of divine attributes with the latter, Kline, “Primal
Parousia,” 265.
c) Thus, the Sabbath is a day of worship.
(1) Even if no cultic rites were prescribed, the Sabbath would be an act of
worship, merely on the basis of what we have already said.
(a) To “meet with God” is to worship [2.a.].
(b) To “remember” a particular day, to keep it holy, is an act of
worship [2.b.].
(c) Celebrating the Lordship of God [2.b.iv.] is an act of worship.
(2) References to worship on the Sabbath.
(a) Remember that “Sabbaths” are not only weekly Sabbaths, but also
feast days.
(b) Weekly meetings of local worshippers (Lev. 23:3, the synagogue).
Jesus did endorse the synagogue pattern in this respect: Luke
4:15ff., parallels.
(c) Sabbath offerings: Numbers 28:9f.; Ezekiel 45:17, 46:3; Nehemiah
10:32f.; Cf. Matthew 12:15f.
(d) Song for the Sabbath Day, Psm. 92:1.
(e) New Testament references to the first day of the week.
(i) Days on which the risen Christ meets his people: Matt. 28:9,
Luke 24:13-51; John 20:1, 19, 26; Revelation 1:10. Did Mary
rest in Luke 10:38-42 because the divine Sabbath was present
in Christ (Cf. Matt. 11:28)? Cf. Christ as the temple-Sabbath,
Matthew 12:5f.
(ii) Days on which the church met to worship, doubtless in
celebration of the Lord’s victory, Acts 2:1, 20:6f., I Corinthians
16:1f., Revelation 1:10.
168
3. The Human Sabbath is an Imitation of God.
The human Sabbath is one with God’s [above, 2.] but also distinct from it. It is
a “finite replica” (Kline). Thus, on the Sabbath, we not only share God’s rest,
but we also seek to copy that rest at a finite, recurring level. In copying it, we
not only honor God’s lordship [B.1.; C.2.]; we also seek to reflect that lordship
in our own vassal kingship. We exert our own lordship in its “control, authority,
presence.”
a) Control: the sabbatical pattern as labor and rest.
(1) Labor: “. . . six days shalt thou labor . . . .”
(a) It is sometimes overlooked that the fourth commandment deals not
only with rest, but also with labor. It presupposes that we will work
six days!
(b) Calvin argues that the language of the commandment does not
present us with an obligation as much as a gift: God gives us six
days to do our work. There is much truth in this, but, of course,
divine gifts always come wrapped in obligations (and vice-versa!).
(c) In the larger context of Scripture, labor is a creation ordinance
(Genesis 1:28ff.). In all periods of redemptive history, idleness is
condemned (Proverbs; II Thessalonians 3:10f.).
(d) This commandment does not mean that we must work for a
particular employer 48 hours out of every week. “Labor” in the
Scriptural context, of course, includes more than the earning of
family income. It includes maintenance of the home, general
cultural activity, etc.
(e) Clearly, too, the commandment does not mean that we may rest
from labor only on Sabbath! Daily rest, nourishment, recovery from
illness, etc., is presupposed. Fanatical labor (the modern
“workaholic”) is condemned as lacking trust in God (Psalm 127:1f.).
Cf. also Jesus in Mark 6:31.
(2) Rest.
(a) The Sabbath is essentially the celebration of a completed work.
(i) Cf. above, B.2. on the divine Sabbath.
(ii) Tabernacle and temple construction indicate provisional
fulfillment of God’s judgments and victory. Note sabbatical
pattern in their consecration (Kline); also passages like Exodus
39:43, 40:33.
(iii) At the human level, the Sabbath is a pause from our labors to
take satisfaction in them as we consecrate them to God.
(iv) As such, the Sabbath anticipates (and participates in!) the final
rest from labor which we will enjoy in God’s presence. Cf. b.,
below.
(b) What kind of work is prohibited?
169
(i) Daily labor (Ex. 31:13-17), including plowing and harvesting
(34:21), commerce and transport of goods (Amos 8:4-6, Jer.
17:21).
(ii) Building of fires (Ex. 35:3, Num. 15:32-26)? I suspect these
texts do not pertain to fires for heating and cooking. See James
Jordan, Sabbath Breaking and the Death Penalty.
(A) Pi’el form in Ex. 35:3 typically refers to ceremonial burning
(Lev. 6:12, Neh. 10:35, 2 Chron. 4:20, 13:11, etc.), or the
fire of divine judgment (Ezek. 20:48, 39:9f, Isa. 4:4, etc.).
(B) On the Sabbath, God’s altar-fire (“hearth fire”) was
intensified (Num. 28:1-10).
(C) So evidently this is a case like the “strange fire” in Lev. 10:1.
No human fire must be intensified to rival God’s ceremonial
fire on the Sabbath day.
(D) The wood gatherer in Num. 15 is held in custody, because
the precise penalty for his sin has not been revealed (verse
34).
1. Evidently his crime is not that of ordinary work on
the Sabbath, but a “high handed” sin (discussed in
context, verses 22ff). Mere working on the Sabbath
was not a capital crime in Ex. 16:27-30, Neh. 13:19-
22.
2. Evidently he was attempting to stoke up his fire in a
way forbidden by Ex. 35:3.
(iii) So I take these references as ceremonial laws, not binding on
New Testament Christians.
(c) After the fall, the Sabbath is a rest, not only from labor, but also
from the toil and misery associated with labor in a fallen world.
Hence its redemptive significance, cf. b., below.
(d) The rest is physical, not merely spiritual. Note emphasis on bearing
burdens, Jeremiah 17:21f., Nehemiah 13:15ff, refreshment, Ex.
23:12, delight, Isa. 58:13.
(e) The Sabbath thus draws our attention to our nature as historical
creatures, the importance of progress, development, goal.
(f) A blessing, Mark 2:27.
(3) Recreation: Does resting on the Sabbath preclude it?
(a) If recreation is pleasurable activity different from one’s daily labors,
then the Sabbath-rest is recreation, par excellence.
(i) Note earlier references to the Sabbath as a “celebration,”
association of Sabbaths with Old Testament feasts.
(ii) The Sabbath a “delight”—Isaiah 58:13f.
(b) As for the propriety of “pleasurable activities” on Sabbath,
Scripture says nothing specific.
170
(i) Isaiah 58:13f. forbids doing your “own pleasure” as opposed to
God’s. “Pleasure” here, however, means “will”.
(ii) “Rest” is clearly not mere inactivity. If “rest” includes activities,
these must be classified as recreations.
(iii) Note reference to “refreshment” in Exodus 31:17, 23:12.
(c) The Westminster Confession forbids on the Sabbath all “works,
words and thoughts about their worldly employments and
recreations. . . .” (XXI:8) because it sees the function of the day
wholly in terms of worship. We shall discuss later [below, D.] the
precise nature of the New Covenant obligation. In the Old
Covenant, at any rate, such a statement would not be appropriate:
(i) Because under the Old Covenant, the day was not spent wholly
in “public and private” worship, except insofar as the
sanctification of the day itself was an act of worship.
(ii) Because the principle of “consecration of labor” requires that we
think and speak about the activities of the six days.
(iii) Because the Old Covenant emphasis is upon rest rather than
worship (at least worship in the cultic sense). The WCF sees
rest only as a ceasing from daily labor to make time for
worship. But in Scripture, the rest is important in itself. It
speaks of “rest” and “refreshment” apart from worship.
(d) Clearly, however, even the Old Covenant forbids, by implication,
any recreation that detracts from the meaning of the day.
(4) Works of Necessity.
(a) God did not intend the Sabbath to destroy man, but to be a
blessing, Mark 2:27. This is characteristic of the law in general (cf.
earlier discussion of the law as way of life).
(b) What is necessary to life and worship, therefore, may be done on
the Sabbath.
(i) Eating, Matthew 12:1-8.
(ii) Arrangements for worship, Matthew 12:5f.
(iii) Healing, Matthew 12:10-13; Luke 14:1ff.; John 5:1ff. Actually,
these passages are better characterized as “works of mercy” [c.,
below], since it was not strictly necessary for these to be done
on Sabbath. However, the two categories do overlap.
“Necessity” is a relative matter. It could be argued that even
eating is not strictly “necessary”. Yet, it is approved.
(iv) Rescuing of people and animals, Luke 14:5. Clearly, also certain
forms of business maintenance are also necessary, by
implication. Not only must oxen be rescued, but also fed,
milked, etc. One might argue that the work of tending animals
is forbidden to a strict Sabbatarian; however, Scripture never
draws this inference. This work, though not absolutely
171
necessary, and even though it involves some Sabbath labor, is
accepted as a godly occupation.
(v) Warfare
(A) It was generally accepted that a people could defend
themselves against attack on Sabbath (cf. I Maccabbees
2:41)—an implication of the last point, as I see it.
(B) Israel circled Jericho seven times on the Sabbath, after which
the walls fell down (Josh 6:15-20).
(C) Jehoiada the priest carried out plot against wicked Queen
Athaliah on Sabbath (2 Kings 11, 2 Chron. 22:10-23:15).
(vi) Travel to consult a prophet (2 Kings 4:23): Shunammite woman
traveled 20 miles.
(vii) Possibility of an alternate day of worship for those who must
travel on business, Num. 9:9-13 on the Passover. See Jordan,
Sabbath Breaking and the Death Penalty, 89-90.
(viii) The “necessity” in view here, then, is not some sort of
abstract “absolute” necessity, but the necessity of those
activities which keep human life n an even keel. It can be only
vaguely defined, and its application requires spiritual
perception. There are many situations in modern business life,
e.g., when some Sabbath work appears “necessary” on the
above criteria. It is difficult to be dogmatic in such areas, but
one must ask if the Sabbatarian does not have a responsibility to
seek to minimize the cases where alleged, or even real,
necessities arise.
b) Authority: the Sabbath as covenant sign, Ex. 31:13, Isa. 56:4, Ezek. 20:18-
30.
The Divine Sabbath is a day on which God authoritatively declares his
victory. Similarly, the human Sabbath, is a day on which the truth of God is
to be declared and which, by its very nature, proclaims the covenant victory
of God.
(1) Declaring God’s acts: Three dimensions of God’s Lordship over time.
(a) Past.
(i) Creation, Genesis 2:3; Exodus 20:11. The victory of God over
the “deep darkness”. (?)
(ii) Redemption:
(a) From Egypt, Deuteronomy 5:15.
(b) Judgment on Canaan (Kline).
(c) The New Testament Lord’s Day as memorial of the
Resurrection.
(b) Present: God’s meeting with us now as his Sabbath intersects ours
[above B.; C.1; C.2.].
(c) Future: God’s eschatological victory (Kline).
172
(2) Declaring our membership in the covenant.
(a) Before the fall, the Sabbath may have conveyed the promise of
blessing within the Covenant of Works (Kline’s Covenant of
Creation). If Adam had obeyed, the blessing would have been his.
(b) The Sabbath was given as a sign to Israel, Exodus 31:13-17; Ezekiel
20:12, 20.
(i) It declares the Lordship of God, 31:13, and, thus, Israel’s
relation to God.
(ii) Sabbath-breaking is not only sin against God, but cuts one off
from God’s people, (v. 14).
(iii) The Sabbath is identified with the covenant, v. 16.
(iv) The Sabbath therefore marks Israel as God’s holy nation. It has
a sacramental function.
(c) The prohibition of Sabbath labor, however, extended to
“strangers,” whose covenant status was ambiguous. (Some were
uncircumcised and, thus, incapable of taking the Passover, or of
sharing the liberation at the Jubilee. Yet, they had certain privileges
and protections under the law, and they were involved in longrange
covenant promises—e.g., Ezekiel 47:22ff.)
(d) The Sabbath’s sacramental function is also seen in the fact that it
signifies and embodies the presence of God’s own rest [above,
C.1., 2.]. On Sabbath and in the Sabbath, God is sacramentally
present with his people.
(e) Revelation 1:10 suggests a sacramental significance for the “Lord’s
day” (Kuriake hemera) in the New Covenant. Cf. the Lord’s
Supper as deipnon kuriakon in I Corinthians 11:20. The “Lord’s
day” bears the same relation to the final “day of the Lord” as the
“Lord’s Supper” bears to the final Supper of the Lamb. Cf. below,
D.4.c.i.c).
c) Presence in blessing and judgment: Man is to imitate God by dispensing
blessing and judgment on the Sabbath. Judgment is seen in the disciplinary
and preaching functions of the church to some extent (Isaiah 6), but the
Scriptural emphasis (as with the divine Sabbath) is on the Sabbath as
mercy. “Deeds of mercy” are presented in Scripture, not as a mere
exception to the general prohibition of labor (as some Reformed treatments
suggest), but as a central function of the Sabbath.
(1) Giving rest.
(a) We are not only to rest ourselves, but also to give rest—to our
families, servants, animals, strangers (Exodus 20:10, 23:12; note
particular emphasis on this point in Deuteronomy 5:14f.).
(b) Thus, the Sabbath is given covenantally—to the whole body, not
just to individuals. [Cf. b.ii., above.] But notice also the ambiguous
status of the “stranger”, b.ii.c).
173
(c) “The poor live as princes for one day a week,” D. Wallace. On this
day, no one gains economic advantage over anyone. As we come
together before God, our essential oneness becomes clearer, and
our priorities are adjusted.
(d) In the system of Sabbatical years, an extension of the weekly
Sabbath, we also give rest to the land. Exodus 23:10f.; Leviticus
25:1ff. This is important to a biblical ecology, but also has
reference to the needs of the poor, strangers, etc. Cf. Deuteronomy
15:1-6.
(e) Note contexts of Isaiah 58:13f., verses 3ff.
(f) The Sabbath law thus forbids God’s people from giving supreme
priority to economic gain or the other rewards of daily life.
(g) As noted earlier, the Sabbath typifies rest from toil, not from sin as
such. Yet, indirectly, it does encourage trust in grace rather than
works. Our weekly rest must be taken, whether earned or not,
because God has given it. The consummation of our week, its
“meaning”, is not the result of anything we have done. Our
“meeting with God” is not by works.
(2) Giving liberty.
(a) The Sabbath commemorates liberation from bondage,
Deuteronomy 5:15. [Cf. above, i.c)-d)].
(b) Release of debts in sabbatical years, release of Hebrew servants,
Exodus 21:1ff.; Deuteronomy 15:1-18; Jeremiah 34:8ff.
(c) Release of debts and return of sold property in the Jubilee,
Leviticus 25:8-17. Note extensive implications of this for the
economy of Israel, outlined in the rest of Leviticus.
(3) Healing: It appears that Jesus healed on the Sabbath, not out of
necessity, but out of deliberate choice. He made this choice, not merely
to provoke the Pharisees, but because of his conviction as to the nature
of the Sabbath: Matthew 12:9-13; Mark 3:1-5; Luke 6:6-10; John 5:1-
17. Even on the Sabbath, God desires “mercy and not sacrifice”
(Matthew 12:8). It is “lawful to do well” on the Sabbath (12:12). The
Pharisees had put such emphasis on the aspect of physical rest that they
had missed this “weightier matter” of the law.
(4) Judgment: 1 Cor. 5:4-5, 11:31-2, 14:29.
d) Summary.
We are called to imitate God in rest, in declaring our union with him, and in
showing mercy. In all of these activities, we declare that God is our Lord,
that our hope is not bound up with our daily activities, but with his
promise. Thus, we do not compete with one another for God’s blessing,
but we share it liberally.
4. Sins connected with the Sabbath (Douma)
a. Working for selfish gain, Neh. 13:15-22.
b. Resting, but plotting ways of defrauding others, Amos 8:5.
174
c. Scribes and Pharisees: defining Sabbath-breaking so precisely as to add to
God’s Word, John 5:9-10.
D. The Sabbath as a New Covenant Obligation.
1. Reformed Views (moving from “least” to “most” Sabbatarian).
a) Calvin (Institutes, II, viii, 31-34) (Reflected in continental Reformed
creeds).
(1) With the coming of the New Covenant, there is no particular day (or
even weekly interval) at which Christians are obligated to abstain from
work and engage in worship, etc.
(2) Such days are shadows which pass away in Christ. Calvin quotes
Colossians 2:17; Galatians 4:10f.; Romans 14:5. He comments, “Who
but madmen cannot see what the apostle means?”
(3) Positively, we keep the Fourth Commandment today:
(a) By laying aside our works and trusting God’s grace for salvation.
(b) By consecrating all our time to the Lord.
(c) By giving rest to servants, etc., and setting aside time for worship.
b) Donald Carson, From Sabbath to Sunday (Zondervan).
(1) As with Calvin, the Sabbath is abolished in the New Covenant: “If we
keep the Sabbath in this dispensation, we are again denying Christ.”
(2) However, the Sabbath is now replaced by the Lord’s Day, which
commemorates the Resurrection and symbolizes the accomplishment of
our rest in Christ.
(3) We are obligated to keep the first day of the week (no other) as a day of
worship. No cessation of work is required.
c) Early Kline (from my student notes in Old Testament Biblical Theology)
(1) Same as i., ii. under c., above.
(2) In the Mosaic Covenant, the emphasis is placed upon rest, rather than
worship, as the essence of the Sabbath command.
(3) Therefore, the Westminster Confession cannot be followed when it
insists that the whole day be taken up in deeds of worship, necessity
and mercy. Rest, and hence recreation, are also appropriate, even
centrally important, to the meaning of the day.
(4) Later, Kline revised his position to argue that in the New Covenant the
Sabbath is a day of worship, but not a day of resting from all labor. He
argued that the rest from labor was part of the “union of culture and
cult” under the Mosaic theocracy. I don’t find that view persuasive,
and I will not discuss it here.
d) The “Puritan” view (Westminster Standards).
(1) The New Testament Lord’s Day is essentially the same as the Old
Testament Sabbath, now properly observed on the first day of the week
rather than the seventh.
175
(2) On this Christian Sabbath, believers must rest “from their own works,
words and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations”
(Westminster Confession of Faith, XXI, 8).
(3) The whole day is to be taken up “in the public and private exercises of
his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.”
2. Sabbath and Creation.
a) A creation ordinance is a divine institution or command which is in effect
from man’s creation until the consummation, such as labor (Genesis
1:28ff.), marriage (1:28; 2:24f.).
b) Creation ordinances do not pass away as the history of redemption
progresses, because they are grounded in man’s nature as:
• created and
• not yet glorified—conditions which exist until the consummation.
c) Exodus 20:11 teaches that God’s blessing of “the Sabbath” in Genesis 2:3
was in effect the sanctifying of man’s Sabbath, and that, for that reason
alone, the Sabbath must be observed, apart from anything peculiar to the
Mosaic economy. [Cf. argument in C.1.a-c., above].
d) Note the “creation sanction” also in Exodus 31:17. Although this ground
of Sabbath-keeping is not mentioned in Deuteronomy 5:12-15, the phrase
“as the Lord thy God commanded thee” clearly refers back to Exodus
20:11 and reaffirms what was said there.
e) There is a lack of evidence for Sabbath-keeping prior to the Exodus from
Egypt, and that poses a problem for the view that the Sabbath is a creation
ordinance. If it were a creation ordinance, ought it not to have been
observed perpetually?
(1) Exodus 16:22-30 shows that Sabbath observance was known before the
giving of the Decalogue, and it presupposes some common knowledge
of the custom.
(2) Many divine laws, clearly revealed, were neglected for long periods of
time: monogamy, the Old Testament sabbatical years and Jubilee, etc.
f) Mark 2:27, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”
(1) Here, Jesus grounds the Sabbath ordinance in the needs of man as man,
not in anything distinctive to the Mosaic economy (Anthropes—generic
man)
(2) “Was made” harks back to the original institution of the Sabbath at
creation—with man on the scene.
(3) In context, Jesus draws a parallel between his disciples, who fed
themselves on the Sabbath, and David’s men, who took the
consecrated bread. He says that the Sabbath was not intended to
frustrate such natural needs, but to meet them. Again, the created
nature of man (needing food and rest) is in view.
(4) Jesus here gives no hint that in his kingdom there will be any change in
the nature of the Sabbath. One might have expected him to do so, by
analogy with his teaching about the place of worship in John 4.
176
g) Mark 2:28, “. . . so that the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”
(1) It is unlikely that “Son of Man” here means simply “man.” Rather, it is a
title of Christ, correlate with his distinctive lordship over the Sabbath.
(2) “Son of Man” does not often focus on the distinctively human nature of
Christ, but in this case, it does. Jesus says that the Sabbath is for man
and that he is Lord of it by virtue of his Lordship over what pertains to
man, that Lordship summarized in the expression “Son of Man.”
(3) In Dan. 7, it appears that the Son of Man is a representative of “the
saints” (verses 18), by whom the saints receive the kingdom (22).
Compare Paul’s description of Christ as second Adam.
(4) Again, Jesus is dealing with his relation to mankind as such. He is not
speaking specifically as Israel’s Messiah, nor of any element of the
Sabbath institution distinctive to Israel.
(5) In claiming Lordship “even” of the Sabbath, Jesus makes a momentous
claim indeed. The Sabbath has always been “the Sabbath of the Lord
your God”. Jesus now places himself in the position of Yahweh. Yet,
even in such a claim, Jesus gives no suggestion that he will abrogate or
substantially alter the Sabbath obligation. Our impression is that he
Sabbath continues in Jesus’ kingdom as before, under his Lordship as
Son of Man.
h) John 5:17: “My father worketh hitherto, and I work.”
(1) Here, Jesus makes a clear claim to deity, for which the Jews seek to kill
him (v. 18).
(2) As deity, then, Jesus claims the right to set the terms for Sabbath
observance.
(3) As incarnate deity, Jesus expresses submission to the Father. He is only
imitating what the Father does, sharing the work of the Father (mercy).
He claims the right to imitate not only the Father’s Sabbath rest, but
also the Father’s Sabbath activity.
(4) Again, there is no hint of any basis for Sabbath observance distinctive to
the Mosaic economy, or any major change to be brought in by Jesus.
The basis of Sabbath observance here is the imitation of God’s rest, the
“creation sanction” of Exodus 20:11 and Genesis 2:3.
i) Hebrews 4.
(1) Here, the “rest” promised to the people of God is traced back to
creation (compare 4:3f., 10 with Genesis 2:3). Note, also, the
references to creation in Psalm 95 (quoted in Hebrews 3:7ff.) as the
basis for the exhortation to hearken and enter God’s rest.
(2) The Sabbath, as we have seen, is a sign of that eschatological rest,
entered by God at creation, promised to man at the consummation
(Gaffin in OPC Minutes of the 40th General Assembly).
(3) Thus, (however one translates sabbatismos in 4:9), the basis of Sabbath
observance is traced back to the creation order, not to the distinctive
provisions of the Mosaic Covenant.
177
(4) Hebrews, incidentally, is much concerned with distinguishing the
permanent from the temporary in God’s purposes. But there is no
indication here that Christ has abolished Sabbath observance .
j) Summary.
(1) Scripture presents the creation order as a sufficient ground of Sabbath
observance. Since that creation structure will not change until the
consummation, the Sabbath obligation continues along with it.
(2) These considerations more or less eliminate the views described as 1.ab.,
above. I say “more or less” because we have not yet considered
some New Testament texts thought to militate against what we have
said here. However, any view placing great weight on those texts must
address itself to the arguments advanced here.
(3) Since the original creation ordinance deals with a cessation from work,
and, since all references to the Sabbath which refer to creation speak in
terms of a rest from labor, view 1.c. must be seriously questioned.
However, we have yet to consider some of Kline’s argumentation
which attempts to account for the data.
3. Sabbath as Redemptive Promise.
a) Although the creation order is a sufficient ground for Sabbath observance,
it is not the only ground given for it in Scripture. Scripture also calls us to
keep the Sabbath because we are the redeemed people of God. Briefly: we
are to remember our past deliverance from toil and to anticipate our future
deliverance.
b) Rest as a redemptive blessing.
(1) Rest becomes a redemptive blessing because of the curse on the ground
and on man’s labor, Genesis 3:17-19. Had man not fallen, rest would
have been a physical necessity and a precious time of communion with
God, but would not have been a specifically redemptive category.
(a) References to man’s labor as toil and misery, Ecclesiastes 2; Psalm
90.
(b) The wicked have no genuine peace, rest: Isaiah 48:22; 57:21.
(c) God gives his people rest: Psalm 127:2; Matthew 11:28 (rest in
taking on a yoke!); Revelation 14:13. Note the descriptions of the
toil in Egypt from which the people were redeemed.
(2) The focus in these passages is not on rest as a relief from sin as such,
but as a relief from toil, sorrow, misery which sin brings into the world.
Labor itself is not sinful, but is cursed because of sin. Similarly, rest is
not itself redemption, but is a fruit of redemption, a blessing brought by
redemption.
c) Sabbath as redemptive rest.
(1) The Sabbath is a present rest which recalls the redemptive rest given in
the past and anticipates the greater rest to come.
(a) Deuteronomy 5:15 emphasizes this, and it is implicit in Exodus 20,
when verses 8-11 are seen as motivated by the preface (verse 2).
178
(b) This is also the major thrust of Hebrews 3-4, though as we
mentioned earlier, the creation sanction is also in view here.
(2) As in the general references to rest [above, b.], these passages do not
picture the Sabbath as a symbol of redemption as such, but as a symbol
of rest from the toil and misery brought into the world by sin and the
curse. The Sabbath, after all, is not a rest from sin, but from labor
(which is good, though difficult). We are not told to sin six days and to
be righteous the seventh, but to work six days and rest the seventh.
(3) If the Sabbath directly symbolized redemption from sin, one could argue
that it is abrogated in the New Covenant since redemption has already
been achieved. But on the contrary: the Sabbath symbolizes something
still future—the final rest from toil. (Cf. Gaffin’s arguments on the
future reference of “rest” in Hebrews 3 and 4.) Thus, the Sabbath is not
superfluous. As a symbol and a foretaste, it remains a great blessing.
(4) Review the passages dealing with Jesus’ relation to the Sabbath: Mark
2:27f. and parallels; John 5:17f.; Hebrews 3:7-4:13. None of these
suggest that Jesus intended the Sabbath to be abrogated or drastically
changed in his kingdom. [Cf. above, 2.f. Cf. also Luke 4:15-28,
parallels, 23:56].
d) Summary: There is nothing in the nature of the redemptive promise that
would suggest some basic alteration in the law governing the weekly
Sabbath. On the contrary, the continued keeping of the Sabbath is
appropriate in the New Covenant as a type and foretaste of the final
consummation rest which is yet to come.
4. “Day-Keeping” in the New Covenant: Romans 14:5; Galatians 4:9ff.;
Colossians 2:16f.
a) These passages represent the strongest argument in favor of Calvin’s view.
On that view, the passages present the Sabbath and all “day-keeping” as
Old Covenant “shadows” which pass away in Christ. The views of Carson
and others can also appeal to these passages as presenting a radical change
in the application of the fourth commandment.
b) Although I favor the “early Kline” view on the basis of the evidence
presented under 2 and 3 above, I am not fully persuaded that adherents of
this view have given a fully adequate account of these texts.
c) There are, however, some considerations which suggest alternative
exegetical possibilities and which weaken arguments from these texts
adduced to prove “less Sabbatarian” views.
(1) Clearly, these texts cannot be used to exclude day-keeping of every sort;
for, elsewhere in the New Testament, day-keeping is required.
(a) The early church met at specific times, obviously, and Hebrews
10:25 makes it clear that attendance at such meetings is not an
optional matter. Thus, in the New Covenant, there are some days
and times set aside for certain specific purposes. [Cf. C.2.c.ii.d),
above].
179
(b) For the Corinthian church, Paul ordains a certain day, the first day,
on which offerings are to be brought, I Corinthians 16:1f.
(c) The “Lord’s day” (kuriake hemera) in Revelation 1:10.
(i) Not the final “day of the Lord”. The context makes clear that
this is a day in John’s present experience.
(ii) It was probably a time of worship, as is suggested, but not
required, by the phrase “in the Spirit”.
(iii) Clearly, it is a day which belongs to the Lord in a special way.
[Cf. deipnon kuriakon in I Corinthians 11:20. For sacramental
sense, see above C.3.b.ii.e)].
(iv) The regular Scriptural reference to Sabbaths as “sabbath of the
Lord” [C.2.b., above] suggests that the Lord’s Day here is also
a Sabbath.
(v) In any case, clearly, this is a special day, one which bears a
distinctive relation to the Lord. It is not proper, in this case, to
“regard every day alike” (Romans 14:5).
(vi) Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho) refers to the Jewish
Sabbath as kuriake. For other church Fathers, kuriake is
Sunday (Didache, 14:1, Ignatius, Magnesians 9:1). Other
references in Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon under kuriakos.
(d) Though the Jews charges Paul with error on matters such as
circumcision and the temple, there is no record of their charging
him with breaking the Sabbath.
(e) Evidently, therefore, Romans 14:5 etc. do not rule out all
observance of days or even make such observance optional in every
case. It thus becomes necessary, on any view, to distinguish in these
passages what sort of obligation is denied and what sort is not
denied. Such a distinction, on any view, will not appear on the
surface. So, it is not a question of one view taking these texts at
“face value” while the other views must engage in elaborate
theological rationalizations. All must do some “theologizing” in
interpreting these texts. We cannot simply take them at “face value”
because it is clear that the first readers of these letters would have
made certain assumptions, certain distinctions that do not appear
evident to us from the passages themselves.
(2) Neither the Romans nor the Galatians passage mentions specifically the
Sabbath. There were many other “days” observed in the Old Covenant
economy, and it is certainly not impossible that the passages refer to
these other days, or even to extra-biblical festivals. Remember that we
must assume the Galatians and Romans capable of making some
distinctions not explicitly noted in the passages. [Above, i.d).]
(3) Rom. 14:5
(a) In context, may refer to days of fasting; but the Sabbath, of course,
is a day of feasting.
180
(b) Note that it says we may abstain from any food; but obviously it is
not saying that we may abstain from the Lord’s Supper.
(4) Galatians 4:10
(a) The specific problem in Galatians is works-righteousness. It is
certainly possible to see Paul arguing here, not against observance
of days as such, but against observance of days (even the Sabbath!)
as a means of self-justification. Similarly: Paul might appear to be
forbidding circumcision in Galatians 5:2f.; but, under other
circumstances, when the issue of justification was not at stake, Paul
not only permitted but performed circumcision, Acts 16:3. More
broadly: Paul’s whole argument in Galatians opposes the doing of
good works for justification. Yet, none of this argument forbids us
to do good works or denies their obligation.
(b) Paul may well have the Jewish Sabbath (Saturday) in mind here.
(5) Colossians 2:16-17
(a) This passage does mention “sabbath” specifically, and it includes
such Sabbaths among the “shadows” which pass away in the New
Covenant. However, sabbath applied not only to the weekly
Sabbath, but to various feast days of the Old Covenant calendar.
The latter were clearly distinguished from the weekly Sabbath in the
Old Testament, and it is not impossible to assume that the
Colossians also made such distinctions naturally. Notice that Paul
speaks of “a” Sabbath, not “the” Sabbath.
(b) John Mitchell made the argument that “feast, new moon and
sabbath” regularly denotes official sacrifices in the Old Testament.
(Report, Minutes of the 40th General Assembly, OPC, pp. 99ff.).
On this basis, the “shadows” would be occasions of Old Covenant
sacrifices, not the weekly Sabbath. (Cf. Hebrews 10).
(c) Or the passage may refer to the weekly Sabbath; but then, the most
likely reference is to the Jewish Sabbath (Saturday). This is the
most common understanding among Sabbatarians and the one I find
most persuasive.
(d) As Douma points out, the “shadows” are no longer in effect; but
there is a positive relation between the OT shadows and continuing
NT ordinances: circumcision/baptism; passover/Lord’s Supper.
Why not also Sabbath/Lord’s Day?
d) Summary: The New Testament texts on “day-keeping”, therefore, do not
present any evidence clearly contradicting strong Sabbatarian views,
though it would certainly help matters if we could reach more definitive
exegetical conclusions on the meanings of these passages.
e) Church-Historical Difficulty: It appears that the early Christians did not
take off work on the first day of the week, or connect Sunday observance
with the Fourth Commandment.
181
(i) The Lord’s Day is honored by early writers, as the replacement
of the Sabbath: Didache, Ignatius (Magnesians), Papias, Justin
Martyr, Dionysius of Corinth, Tertullian. Only Tertullian (200
AD) mentions laying aside daily business on Sunday. The
council of Laodicea (360) is the first to ask Christians to work
Saturday and quit work on Sunday.
(ii) Douma suggests that the Fourth Commandment is not often
invoked here, because of the predominant tendency to read the
commandments allegorically.
(iii) But all regarded the Lord’s Day as a day for joyfully
celebrating redemption, as the OT Sabbath.
(iv) And attending worship meant to some extent setting normal
work aside.
(v) And to keep the day as a Lord’s Day (rather than hour or other
period) naturally entailed a broader cessation from labor. In
time the church came to see this.
(vi) Once this fact became evident, the parallel between the Lord’s
Day and the fourth commandment became obvious, and
theologians came to urge the Lord’s Day as a means of
keeping the fourth commandment.
E. The Form of the Sabbath Under the New Covenant.
The above discussion indicates that the Sabbath continues under the New Covenant
in a form not drastically different from its Old Covenant form. However, clearly,
there are some changes, and we must also specify more concretely those modes of
Sabbath observance sanctioned by both covenants. The general meaning of the
Sabbath has been discussed under C, above. Now, we seek to translate the
Sabbath-symbolism into specific policies particularly for our own period in
redemptive history.
1. Worship and Rest.
a) See D.1., above, for various views.
b) My own position is closer to the“Early Kline view” than to the others.
(1) Clearly, the Sabbath is worship, the consecration of a particular day to
the Lord [C.2.]. In that sense, the Westminster Standards are correct:
the whole day is a day of “worship” because the whole day is to be
consecrated to God in a special way.
(2) However, the Confession is perhaps a bit too quick to equate “worship”
with cultic exercises, thus reaching the conclusion that except for deeds
of necessity and mercy the whole day is to be devoted to such
exercises.
(a) Physical rest on the Sabbath (including recreation) does have a
sacramental (and, thus, worshipful) function as it anticipates our
sharing in the divine rest.
182
(b) If the consecration of the day may be fulfilled only by cultic
exercises, then “deeds of necessity and mercy” are appropriate to
the day only by way of awkward exceptions.
(i) But mercy, as we’ve seen, is a central function of the Sabbath.
This can be seen only if the idea of rest is made more central
than in the Confession: mercy is a giving of rest [C.3.c.]. Thus,
if rest is central, the emphasis on the Sabbath as a day of mercy
becomes intelligible.
(ii) “Deeds of necessity” are also appropriate, because, on our view,
the Sabbath has a manward reference as well as a Godward
reference (Mark 2:27). In Scripture, “deeds of necessity” are
not merely works necessary to keep men alive so they can
worship (Jesus’ disciples might have fasted on Sabbath if that
was the point), but, rather, those works necessary to maintain
man’s full enjoyment of the Sabbath celebration. (Cf. Isaiah
58:13f.)
(3) I do not deny, of course, the appropriateness of cultic exercises on the
Sabbath, only that these are exclusively appropriate. Certainly, no other
day of the week is equally suited to the cultic “meeting” between God
and his people [C.2.]. And no one may take it upon himself to spurn
the assembly (Hebrews 10:25).
(4) Conclusion: The balance of the evidence indicates that under the New
Covenant God requires us to consecrate the Sabbath and thereby to
worship him, not only in cultic exercises, but also in resting from our
labors, delighting in that rest, and sharing it with others in deeds of
mercy.
2. The Change of day.
a) The problem: Apparently, the Old Covenant people of God rested on
Saturday, the seventh day of the week, by divine order. Somehow, the
New Covenant people of God have come to observe Sunday, the first day
instead. But where in Scripture is there a divine command to make this
change? And is it thinkable that such a change would be made without
divine authority?
b) Ambiguity of “change of day”: Before discussing this matter, we must get
clear on what we mean when we talk about a “change of day”. The phrase
is not as perspicuous as it appears.
(1) “Change from Saturday to Sunday”: This could mean merely a change
in the name of the day on which we rest. But certainly, that is not what
is at issue here. There is no divine mandate requiring the Sabbath to
have a certain name. Names for the day rightly vary from language to
language. Whether we call the Sabbath “Saturday” or “Sunday” is a
matter of godly human initiative.
(2) “Change from the day observed in the Old Testament to the day
following”:
183
(a) Since the calendar has changed so often, in so many respects, we
really do not know on what day of our week the Sabbath was
observed in the Old Testament period. Even during that period, it is
doubtful that the calendar remained entirely constant.
(b) Even when it did remain constant, the Sabbath may not have fallen
regularly on the seventh day of the week, though it did occur at
seven-day intervals. Cf. Rushdoony, Institutes, 134ff.
(i) The 15th of Abib, the first month (roughly =April) must be a
Sabbath, for the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The other
Sabbaths are dated from this one, in Lev. 23:6-7, 11, 15-16,
21.
(ii) So the day of the month is constant, the day of the week
variable, like your birthday. It did not fall regularly on
Saturday.
(c) During the New Testament era, the calendar has also changed
frequently, so we do not know precisely which day of our week
was the “first day” of the apostolic church.
(d) Surely, it cannot be argued (especially in the New Testament
period) that there is a divinely commanded calendar. Our inability
to locate the precise day on which the biblical characters rested is
not due to sin.
(e) There is no divinely commanded location for the international date
line. Therefore, there must be some element of human initiative
involved in determining which day of the week will be the seventh
and which will be the first, etc.
(f) The idea, then, of determining the precise day on which the Old
Testament people worshipped and setting aside the day following
that one is an impossible notion, certainly not a matter of divine
command, and not what is meant by “change of day” in this
context.
(3) “Change in Symbolic Weight”:
(a) This, in my view, is the precise nature of the change under
discussion. It is a change in the meaning of the day, a change in
symbolism from end to beginning.
(b) In theory, the early church might have observed the new symbolism
by continuing to worship on the seventh day, but regarding that
seventh day as the first day of a cycle and investing that day with
first-day symbolism. Such an approach, however, would have been
inadequate in their situation, because:
(i) The change had to do with the appearances of the risen Christ
on the day following the Jewish Sabbath. For them to have
retained the old day would have obscured that fact.
(ii) A private change of calendar for the Christians only would have
obscured their witness to the world and especially to the Jews.
184
That witness required observation of a day different from that
of Judaism.
(iii) Thus, a mere symbolic change without actual change of the time
of worship would have been inexpedient in the first century.
Similarly, it would be inexpedient in most situations today. Yet,
there is nothing inherently wrong with worshipping on another
day as long as that day is seen as “first”, with all the symbolic
weight attached to that “firstness”.
(4) The problem then becomes: what divine authorization is there for this
change in symbolic weight?
c) Even during the Old Covenant, there was some Sabbatical symbolism
associated with the “first day” or “eighth day” in a sequence.
(1) The divine Sabbath of Genesis 2:2f. began on the first complete day of
man’s existence. God’s Sabbath (which he intended to share with man)
marked the beginning of man’s life. Our life is the gift of God’s
creation, his completed work, just as our salvation is the gift of God’s
completed redemptive work. Note:
(a) Christ is the second Adam.
(b) Redemption is a new creation.
(2) First-fruits and Pentecost, Leviticus 23:9-21.
(a) Wave-offering on “morrow after the Sabbath,” v. 11.
(b) Meal-offering on “morrow after seventh Sabbath,” v. 16.
(c) Both days are Sabbaths, though the word is not used (14, 21).
“Holy convocation,” “no servile work”.
(d) Symbolism: Christ, the first-fruits of the dead, Pentecost as the
first-fruits of the gospel.
(e) Thus, even under the Old Covenant, God called his people to
observe occasional first-day Sabbaths and, thus, to anticipate the
coming great harvest, the accomplishment of redemption.
(3) Blowing of trumpets, Leviticus 23:24—on the first day of the seventh
month. Trumpets tend to symbolize the approach of the divine
presence.
(4) Feast of tabernacles, Leviticus 23:33-44.
(a) First- and eighth-day Sabbaths, vv. 35, 39.
(b) Symbolism: Christ tabernacling among his people.
(5) Jubilee, Leviticus 25:8-17.
(a) The Jubilee is the fiftieth year in the sequence, following the normal
Sabbatical year, v. 10.
(b) Symbolism: the final rectification, the consummation.
(6) The Old Testament, therefore, pictures the coming (New Testament)
history of redemption in Christ by a series of first-day Sabbaths. One
might even be led to anticipate that when these events are fulfilled, the
185
first day will then achieve more prominence in the life of God’s people.
Possibly:
(a) Even Israel’s seventh-day Sabbath was, in a sense, a “first day yetto-
come”.
(b) Christ brings the first day in principle.
(c) In the consummation, God’s seventh day again becomes fully our
first day, as at creation.
d) The first day in the New Covenant.
(1) The essence of the Sabbath is the “meeting with God” (C.2.). But in
Christ is the definitive meeting point of man with God. He is the
Sabbath.
(a) He calls the disciples, in effect, to drop all their own work to follow
him. Peter and the others, of course, did return to fishing from time
to time during Jesus’ earthly ministry, but notice how often he
interrupts their fishing to draw their attention to himself.
(b) Did Mary, as opposed to Martha, recognize the presence of the
Sabbath in Jesus (Luke 10:38-42)? Contrary to the normal pattern
of guest / host relations, she saw her role to be one of rest, worship
and enjoyment in the presence of Jesus.
(2) First-day resurrection and resurrection appearances, Luke 24:13-51 (36-
47, maybe 48-52); John 20:1, 19, 26.
(3) First-day gatherings of the apostolic church: This is the only day
concerning which there is apostolic example: Acts 2:1, 20:6f.;
I Corinthians 16:1f.
(4) In the post-apostolic period, the first-day gatherings were taken for
granted; they were non-controversial. That presupposes apostolic
warrant.
(5) Conclusion:
(a) Apostolic practice justifies the use of the first day as the Christian
day of worship.
(b) In all probability, the significance of the day is that it is a memorial
to the day of resurrection. This fact, in turn, embraces all of the rich
Old Testament symbolism concerning the first day.
e) Is Sunday the New Testament Sabbath?
(1) Douma:
(a) Both Sabbath and Sunday are special days, commemorative.
(b) Both are feasts.
(c) Both are days of worship.
(d) Both are “made for man.”
(e) Both are violated by selfish labor and by Pharisaic casuistry.
(2) Calvin: since Sabbath symbolizes resting from works righteousness, we
should celebrate it every day.
(a) But God rested only one day.
186
(b) He appointed Israel to observe one day, though in the OT also the
Sabbath symbolized God’s deliverance.
(c) The chief symbolism of the Sabbath is not rest from legalist works,
but rest from the toil that sin brings into the world. We are not told
to spend six days in legalistic works and rest on the seventh.
(3) Days of worship, “holy convocation,” were Sabbaths in the Old
Testament. The day of worship and the day of rest are never separated.
Previous discussion shows the theological necessity of this.
(4) Since there is clearly a change in symbolic weight, from a predominantly
seventh-day symbolism to a predominantly first-day symbolism, under
the New Covenant, and, since that symbolic weight has been attached
to the Sabbath [i., above], the day has, therefore, been changed.
(5) But do we still keep the letter of the fourth commandment, which
specifies a sequence of six days of work and a rest on the seventh?
(a) The New Testament Sabbath is, like the Old, a day of rest between
one six-day period and another. What do we rest from? As in the
Old Covenant, we rest from the preceding six days of work.
(b) The Sabbath in either covenant, then, is both backward looking and
forward looking. It is a memorial to God’s acts in the past and a
consecration of our own past labors, but also an anticipation of the
history of redemption to come.
(c) The difference lies, not in any drastic change, not even a drastic
change of symbolism, but in a change of symbolic weight. The New
Testament Sabbath carries the same symbolism of the Old
Testament Sabbath, but refocuses it to account for its distinctive
historical position: it changes the Old Testament symbolism by
stressing the new beginning made by the finished accomplishment
of redemption.
(d) Thus, we still rest on the seventh day, as the fourth commandment
says—the seventh day from the beginning of the work-week. But
that seventh day is our first day in Christ.
3. Sabbath as a New Covenant Sign.
a) In all ages, the Sabbath is a distinguishing mark of God’s people [C.3.b.;
E.1.b.iv.d)]. Yet, it is given to the whole human race in creation and
probably also in the earliest redemptive covenants (see earlier discussion of
Kline).
(1) Since it “distinguishes” the whole race as God’s covenant people, there
is a sense in which it does not distinguish at all. All are given the
Sabbath as a sign of promise.
(2) Though all have the obligation to keep the Sabbath, few do; that is one
aspect of the covenant-breaking that characterizes the human race.
(3) Thus, Israel is called to be a nation of Sabbath-keepers. The language in
Exodus 31:12ff. does not suggest that the Sabbath is something
unknown to other nations or distinctive to Israel, but, rather, that Israel
187
is to be unique as a Keeper of the Sabbath. In Exodus 20:8, Israel is
told to remember the Sabbath. Again, the impression is that Israel is to
observe a law that has been previously known but not observed.
b) Thus, the sign- or sacramental-character of the Sabbath does not
distinguish the church in the sense that those outside the church are
forbidden to observe it. It is not parallel to baptism and the Lord’s Supper
in this respect. Note again the obligation of “strangers” (Exodus 20:10)
whether circumcised or not (Exodus 12:48).
c) Blue laws.
(1) There is, therefore, nothing theologically wrong with urging unbelievers
to keep the Sabbath, just as we urge them not to kill or steal.
(2) Since we are called, as Sabbatarians, not only to rest, but also to give
rest, it is proper for us to seek in society a slackening of the pace so
that the populace as a whole may rest one day in seven, and also
(incidentally!) to reduce the economic pressure on Christians to break
the Sabbath in order to compete. The Sabbath was made for man
(Mark 2:27)—a creation ordinance written into our being. We need to
rest one day in seven. To promote this is to promote health in the
fullest sense, not just to promote a feature of a particular redemptive
covenant.
(3) For the role of government, see discussion of the fifth commandment.
Generally, I see no objection to the use of the powers of government to
enforce Sabbath-observance, though this may not be desirable in every
situation. Even if one denies to government the right to enforce
religion, one certainly must acknowledge the right of government to
protest religion and to promote rest in society [above, ii.].
4. Sabbath Years and Jubilee
a) These have to do with the rest of the land.
b) So I take it that these were given to Israel as a theocracy, not to the Gentile
nations who have no divine land grant.
c) Though not mandatory, they express important principles (see below).
5. Broader Implications.
a) Ecology.
(1) In the sabbatical years, and in the Jubilee, the land was to rest, just as on
the weekly Sabbath, man was to give rest to his family, servants and
animals. This completes the reference to those under man’s dominion.
Exodus 23:10f.; Leviticus 25:1-17.
(2) Thus, the cultural mandate is not intended as an exploitation of creation,
but a “guarding and keeping”, (Genesis 2:15).
(3) Scripture warns us, therefore, against coveting prosperity in such a way
that we destroy the God-given source of our wealth. God’s people not
only take from the earth, but also give back.
b) Care for the poor.
188
(1) In the sabbatical years, debts were remitted and Hebrew slaves set free,
unless they voluntarily agreed to accept lifetime servitude,
Deuteronomy 15:1-6, 12-18.
(2) One reason for the rest of the land was so that “the poor of thy people
may eat” (Exodus 23:11).
(3) Again, then, we are being warned against precisely the acquisitive spirit
so common in modern America. The Sabbath, in all its forms, means
that we will not put our own wealth ahead of the needs of others. [Cf.
C.3.c.].
(4) Hence, the condemnation of Amos against the Sabbatarians of his day,
8:4-10. They kept the Sabbath, so far as the letter of the law was
concerned, but they eagerly awaited the end of the Sabbath so that they
could resume their oppression of the poor. Thus, they had not begun to
appreciate the meaning of the Sabbath ordinance. The Sabbath
commandment requires a Sabbatarian attitude of heart—a willingness
to serve.
V. The Fifth Commandment: “Honor thy father and thy mother (Deuteronomy: as the
Lord thy God hath commanded thee), that thy days may be long (Deuteronomy: and that
it
might go well with thee) in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.”
WLC, Q124: Who are meant by father and mother in the fifth commandment?
A124: By father and mother, in the fifth commandment, are meant, not only natural
parents, but all superiors in age and gifts; and especially such as, by God's ordinance, are
over us in place of authority, whether in family, church, or commonwealth.
Q125: Why are superiors styled Father and Mother?
A125: Superiors are styled Father and Mother, both to teach them in all duties toward
their inferiors, like natural parents, to express love and tenderness to them, according to
their several relations; and to work inferiors to a greater willingness and cheerfulness in
performing their duties to their superiors, as to their parents.
Q126: What is the general scope of the fifth commandment?
A126: The general scope of the fifth commandment is, the performance of those duties
which we mutually owe in our several relations, as inferiors, superiors, or equals.
Q127: What is the honor that inferiors owe to their superiors.?
A127: The honor which inferiors owe to their superiors is, all due reverence in heart,
word, and behavior; prayer and thanksgiving for them; imitation of their virtues and
graces; willing obedience to their lawful commands and counsels; due submission to their
corrections; fidelity to, defense and maintenance of their persons and authority, according
to their several ranks, and the nature of their places; bearing with their infirmities, and
covering them in love, that so they may be an honor to them and to their government.
Q128: What are the sins of inferiors against their superiors?
A128: The sins of inferiors against their superiors are, all neglect of the duties required
toward them; envying at, contempt of, and rebellion against, their persons and places, in
their lawful counsels, commands, and corrections; cursing, mocking, and all such
189
refractory and scandalous carriage, as proves a shame and dishonor to them and their
government.
Q129: What is required of superiors towards their inferiors?
A129: It is required of superiors, according to that power they receive from God, and
that relation wherein they stand, to love, pray for, and bless their inferiors; to instruct,
counsel, and admonish them; countenancing, commending, and rewarding such as do
well;
and discountenancing, reproving, and chastising such as do ill; protecting, and providing
for them all things necessary for soul and body: and by grave, wise, holy, and exemplary
carriage, to procure glory to God, honor to themselves, and so to preserve that authority
which God hath put upon them.
Q130: What are the sins of superiors?
A130: The sins of superiors are, besides the neglect of the duties required of them, an
inordinate seeking of themselves, their own glory, ease, profit, or pleasure; commanding
things unlawful, or not in the power of inferiors to perform; counseling, encouraging, or
favoring them in that which is evil; dissuading, discouraging, or discountenancing them
in
that which is good; correcting them unduly; careless exposing, or leaving them to wrong,
temptation, and danger; provoking them to wrath; or any way dishonoring themselves, or
lessening their authority, by an unjust, indiscreet, rigorous, or remiss behavior.
Q131: What are the duties of equals?
A131: The duties of equals are, to regard the dignity and worth of each other, in giving
honor to go one before another; and to rejoice in each other's gifts and advancement, as
their own.
Q132: What are the sins of equals?
A132: The sins of equals are, besides the neglect of the duties required, the undervaluing
of the worth, envying the gifts, grieving at the advancement of prosperity one of another;
and usurping preeminence one over another.
Q133: What is the reason annexed to the fifth commandment, the more to enforce it?
A133: The reason annexed to the fifth commandment, in these words, That thy days may
be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, is an express promise of long
life and prosperity, as far as it shall serve for God's glory and their own good, to all such
as keep this commandment.
A. Place in the Decalogue
1. Transition from duty to God, to our duty to man.
a) Note Kline's reservations: no division between two tables.
b) But a striking transition nonetheless:
(1) Worship, reverence to God in I-IV
(2) Parallel (!) reverence to human beings in V. (How reconcile??)
2. The second creation ordinance
a) Worship and Sabbath, I-IV
b) Family, V-VII (Can murder be construed as a family crime? Note Gen.
4:1-15, restriction of vengeance in family context. No corresponding
restriction outside that context, Romans 13:4. In some ways the human race
is a family; in other ways not.)
190
c) Labor VIII-X
(Can “false witness” be construed as a crime against property, an attempt to gain
economic advantage through legal authority?)
B. General Thrust
1. Honor, Kabad: Calvin' distinctions still helpful.
a) Reverence, respect (Existential perspective)
(1) “Fear” used in parallel texts: Leviticus 19:3, Romans 13:7, I Peter 2:18
(2) Parallels language used concerning our worship of God.
(a) Sometimes Scripture contrasts the honor due to God with that due
to any human being, Acts 4:19, 5:29, even father and mother!
Matthew 10:35-37, Mark 10:29f, Luke 14:26f. (Strong testimony
to the deity of Christ.) First commandment!
(b) But in the fifth commandment, reverence to father and mother is a
consequence of our reverence to God.
(i) Deut. “as the Lord thy God commanded thee”
(ii) Leviticus 19:32, Ephesians 6:1ff, Colossians 3:20ff
(iii) Matthew 15:4-6, Mark 7:10ff, Corban
(a) Pledge of money to temple, or legal notice disclaiming
responsibility for parents' debts?
(b) In either case, an attempt to divest self of obligation, by
religious, legal oath. Cf. Exodus 21:17.
(c) Jesus condemns this competition between loyalty to God
and to parents. It actually dishonors by making his word
void.
(c) Need for balanced perception
(i) Roman Catholic reverence of men: latreia, douleia,
uperdouleia, clergy titles
(ii) Protestants + exaggerated reverence for theologians, pastors,
traditions.
(iii) Existential perspective: need to “see as.”
(d) Importance of deference, Gen. 31:35, 1 Kings 2:19, 1 Tim. 5:1.
(e) Seriousness of cursing, Ex. 21:17, Lev. 20:9, Prov. 20:20, 30:11.
b) Submission (Normative perspective)
(1) General: reverence or respect entails hearing with respect, expecting to
learn, being willing to change, not assuming too quickly that we know
more than the one we listen to.
(a) I Timothy 5:1 - not blind obedience: we can exhort. But age is a
factor in determining how we exhort.
(b) I Peter 5:5. In both of these-passages, “elder” may mean simply
“older man,” not necessarily a church officer.
(c) Proverbs: the elderly are assumed to be wise, worth hearing. When
they are not, they are pathetic cases.
(d) Note the negative example of Rehoboam, 1 Kings 12.
(e) Scripture presents parents (and the elderly generally) as teachers:
Deut. 6:6-7, Prov. 1:10, 2:1, 3:1. Accepting the wisdom of parentsteachers
leads to long life (Prov. 3:1-2, 4:10). The concept of
191
parents as wisdom teachers is the logical link between honoring
parents and the promise of long life and prosperity (Douma).
(2) Obedience: This is a particular form of submission, not submission itself.
Sometimes submission entails obedience, sometimes not.
(a) Children and parents: for a child, submission to parents involves
obedience, Ephesians 6:1, Colossians 3:20. But when the child
comes of age, little is said about obedience. “Honor” then takes
primarily the form of respect (a) and financial support (c).
(b) Civil authorities, Titus 3:1, I Peter 2:13f.
(c) Church authorities, Hebrews 13:17, Phil. 2:12, II Thes. 3:14.
(d) Wives, I Peter 3:6
(e) Servants, Colossians 3:20, I Peter 2:18ff (even to the cruel!)
(f) Limit on obedience: we must disobey human authorities when they
command us to disobey God. When we sin against God, we may
not offer as an excuse that we were commanded to do so by lawful
authority. Ex. 1:17, 19-21, I Samuel 22:17ff, I Kings 12:28-30, 2
Chron. 26:16-21, Daniel 6:22f, Matt. 10:37, Luke 3:13f, 14:26,
Acts 4:18-20, 5:29.
(i) Hezekiah followed his ancestor David, rather than his father
Ahaz, 2 Kings 18:3.
(ii) Jesus was not uncritical of his parents (Luke 2:49), but was
subject to them (2:51).
c) Financial support (Situational perspective)
(1) Financial connotation of kabad, Proverbs 13:9, Gen. 13:2, Isaiah 43:23,
Malachi 1:6, 3:8; time, I Timothy 5:17.
(2) NT Obligation: I Timothy 5:4ff (note especially verse 8), Mark 7:10ff.
2. Father and Mother: The Larger Catechism sees the Fifth Commandment as
covering all interpersonal relations: between superiors, inferiors, equals. Can this
rather broad understanding of “father and mother” be justified?
a) Structure of family metaphors in Scripture
(1) Elders, rulers, military chiefs: Ex. 12:21, Duet. 5:23, II Kings 5:13, Gen.
45:8, Isaiah 49:23, Judges 5:7
(2) Prophets, wisdom teachers, church leaders: Ps. 34:11f, Proverbs 1:8,
10, 15, II Kings 2:12, 13.14, I Cor. 4:15, Gal. 4:19, I Thes. 5.12f
(“esteem”), 1 Tim. 1:2, Tit. 1:4.
(3) Older people: I Timothy 5:1
(4) God: Malachi 1:6, Matt. 6:9, Ephesians 3:15
b) Family is the fundamental sphere from which all other spheres are derived;
therefore, family “honor” is the tie that binds all society.
(1) Historically
(a) Adam played all roles: prophet, priest, king
(b) Noah: human race born anew in a single family
(c) Israel: its institutions are elaborations of its original family structure
(d) New Covenant: a new family, Matthew 12:48ff, Mark 10:29f,
Ephesians 1:5, Romans 14: 10ff
192
(2) Developmentally: For young children, the family still performs all the
functions of society: teaching, discipline, employment, religious
leadership.
(3) Logically: “"rule”" in all spheres is similar, I Timothy 3:4, David as
shepherd and king.
c) Similar “honor” required in all authority spheres: reverence, submission,
support, promise of prosperity, “unto the Lord.” Proverbs 3:1-2, Ephesians
5:22ff (note verse 22, 6:5, 7, 9), Colossians 3:23ff, I Peter 2:17 [cf. Exodus
22:28, Proverbs 24:21, Psalm. 82:6].
d) Universality of “honor” in Scripture
(1) Honor attaches to all persons
(a) Romans 13:7 - probably an allusion to fifth commandment; note
reference to other commandments in verse 9.
(b) I Peter 2:13, 17.
(2) Mutual submission in the church
(a) Romans 12:10 - in honor preferring one another
(b) Ephesians 5:21ff - note reciprocal responsibilities.
(c) I Peter lff - note “honor” due the wife in verse 7, promise of
prosperity in verse 9.
(d) I Corinthians 7:2-4 - surprising mutual “ownership”
(e) I Corinthians 11:11 - lest readers draw wrong inferences from
female submission
(3) Pattern of office in the new covenant, John 13:12-17, Matthew
20:20-28, I Peter 3. Unusual: instead of the “inferior” being preoccupied
with the needs of the superior, vice versa. There ought to be an
atmosphere of love in the church entirely different from that found in
any secular institution.
(4) Still, there is a real authority structure. Christ is over the church, parents
have authority over children, husbands over wives. (Ephesians 5:21
does not make husband and wife equal authorities.)
(5) Vs. egalitarianism, authoritarianism.
(a) God places all of us under authority. In itself, this is not demeaning
or oppressive, contra feminism.
(b) God has not made us all equal in gifts and abilities.
(c) But no human ruler should claim divine power over all aspects of
human life.
(d) And rulers should rule for the good of their subjects.
3. Promise of Prosperity
a) For obedience to God, but also for obedience to his representatives,
Colossians 3:25, I Timothy 5:8, I Peter 2:18, 3:8-12.
b) Functions in new covenant as well as old: Mark 10:30, Colossians 3:24,
Ephesians 6:1, I Peter 3:10 (quotes Psalm 34:12, which alludes to fifth
commandment). “Land” is the whole earth now.
c) Does distinguish the righteous from the wicked, I Kings 3:14, Malachi 4:6.
193
d) Not automatic, however. Some faithful people die young. That can be a
blessing, 1 Kings 14:13, 2 Kings 22:20. But the ultimate fulfillment of this
promise is in the life to come.
e) Still, there is blessing in this life for honoring God and his representatives,
Mark 10:29-31, 1 Tim. 4:8.
f) Why is this promise attached specifically to the fifth commandment?
(1) Similar sanctions attached to worship, honor of God, obeying him:
second commandment, Deuteronomy 6:3, 18 (note parallel language).
(2) Point of fifth commandment: attaches same sanctions to God's
representatives.
(3) Extends to sources of life generally: 12:25, 28 (blood not to be eaten);
22:6f (don't take mother bird and eggs). Ecological implications.
(4) Parents as wisdom teachers: following their wisdom brings long life
(Prov. 3:1-2, 4:10, Psm. 1). Compare the function of God’s law “for
your good” (Deut. 6:24, 10:13, 12:28).
B. Sphere-relations: Historical Survey
1. Sophists
a) Ethical irrationalism: moral norms neither true nor false.
b) Ethical rationalism: man is the measure of all things.
c) Irrationalism leads to anarchy in society.
d) Rationalism leads to totalitarianism (“Justice is the interest of the stronger.”)
2. Plato
a) Rationalism: philosopher knows the forms, so he ought to rule.
b) Hence, totalitarianism
(1) No private property
(2) Communal wives, children for upper classes
(3) Eugenic supervision of marriages, births
(4) Compulsory education
(5) Censorship of art, literature
c) Tyranny? But it is supposed to bring fulfillment to each individual.
3. Aristotle: State is more important than the individual, since the whole is more
important than any part. It is the partnership that includes all partnerships.
4. Stoics: similar reasoning, leading to conclusion of world government.
5. Aquinas
a) Doctrine of the state can be established by natural (Aristotelian) reason.
(1) State is highest social whole of which all are parts.
(2) “Subsidiarily:” Let the parts do what they can.
b) If man hadn't fallen, the state would be enough; but because of sin, we need
the church also.
c) The two are distinct, each autonomous in its own realm (nature/grace).
d) Since grace is the higher sphere, the church is superior to the state. It is the
extension of the incarnation itself.
(1) It prevails where conflict.
(2) It instructs the state concerning natural law (since the fall, it has a
superior understanding of nature).
(3) The state may enter the sphere of grace insofar as it helps the church.
194
(4) Boniface VIII: earthly power is delegated to the pope. He may remove a
heretical ruler.
(5) Bellarmine - more moderate
(a) Church and state are like soul and body.
(b) Church's principal responsibility in state is to enlighten rulers,
people on the extent and limits of their obligations.
(c) The church has a right to intervene in temporal matters which affect
the spiritual realm.
6. Maritain (modern, pre-1967 Roman Catholic)
a) State is supreme embodiment of natural reason.
b) Its work: promote the common welfare, maintain law, administer public
affairs.
c) Church is superior because man is spiritual.
(1) That supremacy, however, must be applied “analogously” - differently in
different situations.
(2) In democracy, authoritarianism inappropriate. A more spiritual approach
better befits the church's nature: moral enlightenment.
(3) Don't compromise with moral law, but don't enforce rules too heavy for
the common good.
d) State may help church
(1) By creating conditions of order
(2) By acknowledging God
(3) Specific help (no more than it would give to any other group)
7. Vatican II - now room for all sorts of views in Roman church.
8. Machiavelli (1469-1527)
a) Christianity makes men passive, discourages political involvement; thus
power of the church must be sharply curbed.
b) Law alone makes men virtuous, hunger alone makes him industrious.
c) Until population is purified, the state requires as absolute despot to maintain
strength.
d) That despot may do anything (lie, trick, force) to achieve his ends. He is
above the sphere of individual morality.
9. Bodin, Hobbes, Rousseau: “Social contract.” Once the people have transferred
their authority to the state, the state becomes absolute in authority, irrevocably in
power.
10. Locke: Social contract modified in direction of Rutherford.
11. Anabaptism (Yoder, The Politics of Jesus)
a) Sword-bearing of state is radically incompatible with Jesus' teaching
concerning non-resistance.
(1) Rev. 13: state is satanic.
(2) Romans 13
(a) State is one of the tribulations the church must endure until the last
day (verses 11-14).
(b) Church must relate to state in attitude of suffering love (Chap. 12,
13:8-10), meek submission.
195
(c) “Be subject” - not obedience, but subordination. Christians may
often have to disobey, but must accept the penalty.
(d) “Ordained by God” - ordered by God; so no divine approval
involved.
(e) “Good (4) and “evil” are not obedience or disobedience to the
state, but living according to the standards of Rom. 12.
(f) “Minister of God” - the Christian, not the civil magistrate.
(g) Use of force is evil. True power only in suffering.
(h) Conclusion: state is an evil which God uses for his purpose.
b) So Christians ought not to participate in the state at all.
c) Reply:
(1) Does no justice O.T.
(2) Hard to eliminate element of divine sanction from Romans 13.
(3) Hypotasso does regularly mean to obey out of obligation, not just to
submit to superior force. See Luke 2:51, 10:17, 20, Rom. 8:7, 1 Cor.
14:34, 37, 16:16, Eph. 5:24, Col. 3:18, 1 Pet. 2:13, 18, 3:1, 5, 5:5, Tit.
2:9, 3:1, Jas. 4:7, Heb. 12:9.
(4) Anabaptist reading of “good,” “evil,” and “minister of God” not
plausible.
(5) Is power as force always evil? 1 Tim. 6:15, Rev. 5:5, 12, 12:5, 21:24.
(6) Anabaptists accept authority of parents, husbands, teachers. Why not of
state?
12. Lutheranism: “the doctrine of the two kingdoms”
a) God approves of state, but it is less than God's best.
b) It is an emergency measure to preserve life, order, family after fall.
c) Uses forces unleashed by the fall, but in interest of love.
d) “God's left hand.” Contradiction in God's nature? (Thielicke)
e) Powers of state, then, must be limited.
f) Kingdom of God: based on entirely different principles. Rule only through
word, spirit.
g) Prince can be Christian, but in different order.
h) Cf. law/gospel distinction: threat may never be a means to a godly end.
i) Church and state
(1) State not arm of church, but ought to be Christian.
(2) Ought to protect church, help organize it.
(3) Cannot intervene in purely religious issues.
(4) Erastianism: church under state control.
13. Calvin
a) State is a gracious provision of God. (vs. RC, Anabaptist, Lutheran)
b) Scripture determines the state's prerogatives.
c) Church and state: difference is competence, jurisdiction.
d) Limits of state's jurisdiction: somewhat unclear.
e) Ground of revolution? Generally no, but:
(1) Sermon on Daniel 6:22 - When rulers rise against God, people should
put them down.
196
(2) Last page of Institutes: lesser magistrates must not simply agree to
unjust policies.
14. S. Rutherford (Lex, Rex, 1644)
a) Government is from God, but ratifies by people (Saul, David).
b) King is subject to God's law.
c) In accepting a ruler, the community does not surrender all its rights (as
Rousseau thought), but only the right to do violence. They maintain the right
of self-defense.
d) If the king breaks the contract, the people are free from their obligations.
e) Romans 13 includes “inferior magistrates.”
(1) So the king is not the sole interpreter of the law.
(2) Separation of powers is desirable.
(3) Inferior judges also have power of sword.
15. A. Kuyper (Lectures on Calvinism. 1898)
a) Authority of the state is from God, subject to the word.
b) Its responsibilities: Compel mutual respect, defend the weak, collect taxes or
national purposes
c) Other spheres also sovereign - their rights from God, not state.
d) Thus state must respect their rights - basis of freedom. May not interfere in
their “internal workings”
e) State is “unnatural” institution. (vs. Van Ruler)
(1) Post-fall
(2) Vs. man's natural impulses - replaces organic with mechanical
motivation.
(3) But necessary in fallen world.
f) State under God's law, but not theocracy (Urim)
(1) Must protect church
(2) Cannot extirpate idolatry, since state not competent to decide which
church is right.
(3) Ought to penalize blasphemy, not because of its impiety, but because
God rules over the state.
g) Comments
(1) Not specific enough in reference to Scriptural law.
(2) Limits on state not precise.
(3) Reformed resistance, though, to anarch/totalitarian dialectic.
16. Dooyeweerd
a) More elaborate account of family, church, state as belonging to distinct
spheres, freedom grounded in this diversity under God.
b) Problems: grounding for distinctions, precision on powers, limits of state
power.
c) His disciples, therefore, differ greatly in their view of the power of the state:
cf. the conservative Van Riessen, the socialistic Bob Goudswaard. No “limit
in principle” to governmental interference, because no clearly exegetical
approach.
17. Theonomy (see general discussion of normative perspective)
a) Scripture sets limits on state powers.
197
b) O.T.: church/state distinguished by priesthood/kingship.
c) Emulate OT laws (with cultural and redemptive-historical adjustments).
18. Clowney ("The Politics of the Kingdom")
a) Kingdom of God: the coming of God himself in Christ.
b) Kingdom power - radically different from earthly power.
c) Christ fulfills creation mandate, Matthew 28, Ephesians 4:10, dominion
promises to Israel.
d) Our work: not to seek dominion, but to endure the sufferings of Christ in
bringing the gospel to the world. The glory comes later.
e) The church is the new theo-political form of the kingdom, but radically
different from the O.T. theocracy. No sword.
(1) It is the form of the heavenly city, while the state is the form of the
earthly city.
(2) Sword is for Christians, non-Christians alike (Genesis 9); cf. Kline.
f) Applications
(1) Don't link Christianity to political hopes.
(2) Cultural mandate no longer in force.
(3) God does not promise us skill in world politics, etc.
(4) Don't amass wealth, but give to the needy.
g) Comments
(1) Brings out more clearly than the Kuyperians the distinctive nature of the
church.
(2) Cultural mandate and great commission: see previous discussion.
(3) Secularity of the state.
(a) Scripture does teach that the civil magistrate does not lose his
authority because of unbelief.
(b) But why should we not strive to increase Christian influence in the
state? Unbelieving magistrates may have lawful authority, but they
are hardly ideal.
(4) God does give worldly wisdom to Christians: Proverbs
(5) Christians are promised prosperity; and prosperity is necessary if we are
to help the needy in meaningful way.
19. Frame, “Toward a Theology of the State.”
20. Some conclusions (tentative)
a) Scripture must govern our thinking in this area in detail as well as general
drift.
b) The church is the fundamental form of the kingdom of God. As such it
performs for God's people many functions otherwise performed by the state.
c) Authority of the state is limited:
(1) By God's commission which is limited.
(2) By other institutions, especially church.
(3) By Scriptural norms.
d) Insofar as state is obedient to Scripture, it may be and ought to be Christian.
e) Cautious imitation of Old Covenant Israel is desirable for avoiding
subjectivism, maintaining liberty.
f) Should churches be politically active?
198
(i) The church should proclaim the whole counsel of God, which
often bears upon questions of political debate: freedom of
religion, abortion, care for the poor, race, gender roles,
homosexuality, political corruption, and many others.
(ii) This proclamation should not be limited to church services. It
is appropriate for Christians to write letters to representatives,
write to public media, picket, demonstrate, etc. to make their
desires known.
(iii) Any genuine application of the Word is legitimate in preaching
and teaching. In some situations, it might even seem necessary
to oppose or endorse a particular candidate (Hitler as limiting
concept!), though a church could forfeit its tax exemption if it
makes a partisan endorsement.
(iv) But on many issues, political decisions require expertise not
generally found among preachers:
(A) Federal budget allocations, military hardware, effects of
government on the economy, etc. More humility is
required on such matters.
(B) Making decisions on issues that are not black and white.
(C) Deciding what weight to put on each issue when making a
political decision.
(v) Often, churches can provide better services than government to
alleviate social problems: Christian schools, working with the
homeless, etc.
(vi) Churches need to be alert to attacks on their liberty to proclaim
Christ: anti-church zoning policies, restrictions on religious
speech, draconian restrictions against anti-abortion
demonstrations, etc.
C. Civil Disobedience, Revolution
1. Generally, Scripture is anti-revolutionary.
a) Suffering obedience, even to froward, cruel rulers: Romans 13, I Peter 2,
Revelation 13, Matthew 22:15-22. (taxes were 40%)
b) Emigration is a possibility if matters are intolerable.
2. Nevertheless, we must refuse any command contrary to God's will [I, B, 1, b, ii].
3. Obedience to law is fundamentally obedience to the whole system.
a) We may break a lower law if we believe that a higher law transcends it.
(Often we must, to obtain justice.)
b) Calvin: Lower magistrates must resist tyranny from the higher, for the higher
magistrate is accountable to the law.
c) Sometimes, therefore, a ruler must be replaced.
(i) Best if peaceful.
(ii) In an extreme situation, perhaps violence is justified. Police and
military power should be used not only to quell lawlessness
among the subjects, but also among the rulers.
199
(iii) Vs. anarchy, however. The leadership must either be part of
the governing body already, or must represent a viable
alternative regime. The American Revolution?
4. A government may cease to be a government. (Hard to judge)
a) Losing all standards of justice, becoming like a crime organization (contra
Romans13)
b) Becoming too weak to maintain order.
c) Breaking contracts with the people.
5. If power is being contested, the Christian is under no obligation to support the
previous status quo. Make the decision using biblical criteria of justice.
6. An alternative government must be available. Anarchy is not an acceptable result
The Christian is under authority (Romans13).
D. Punishment
1. Theories
a) Deterrence (of offender or of others in society): Proverbs 22:15,
Deuteronomy 13:11, Cleansings, offerings.
b) Reformation (Proverbs, I Corinthians 5:5)
c) Restitution (most prominent in biblical theft-law)
d) Restraint (quarantine, exile, capital punishment)
e) Taxation (not in Scripture - a non-moral motive)
f) Retribution (talion; basic to all punishment)
2. Problems today
a) Deterrence and reformation have contrary applications.
b) Little restitution in modern civil law.
c) Resistance to retribution (but what basis do we have for punishing anyone,
or “curing” anyone, if that treatment is not deserved?
3. Forms of civil punishment
a) Imprisonment
(1) In Scripture, prison used only to hold people for trial. No prison terms
as penalties.
(2) Prison terms as-punishments are a modern idea designed for
humanitarian and reformatory purposes.
(3) Prison systems are dismal failures on both counts.
(4) Biblical alternative:
(a) Double restitution for theft (strict justice: the criminal loses
precisely what he would have gained).
(b) Incorrigible criminals: execution.
(i) Contempt for society (“High hand”)
(ii) Vs. development of criminal class.
b) Restitution (above)
(1) Strict justice
(2) Benefit to victim
c) Slavery (“household apprenticeship”)
(1) Various forms: enslavement through war, voluntary slavery. We will
consider the enslavement of believers for debt or theft.
(2) Live with family, learn a trade, learn responsible habits.
200
(3) Beating allowed, since lack of motivation.
(4) Set free in 7th year.
(5) Gifts for celebration, establish in trade, Deuteronomy 15:14, 18.
(6) Model of “second childhood”
(7) Slavery in American South
(a) Based on kidnapping, a capital crime in Scripture.
(b) Based on racism
(c) Believing slaves were not set free after six years, nor were they
trained for post-slavery responsibilities.
d) Capital Punishment: objections
(1) Sixth commandment
(a) But Sixth commandment is opposed to unlawful killing
(ratzach). Lawfulness is relative to Scripture.
(b) Background of Sixth commandment is Genesis 9:6 which
provides precisely for the shedding of blood by the state.
(c) The law as a whole provides for capital punishment.
(2) “N.T. prohibits revenge.”
(a) O.T. also teaches love of enemies, limits personal
vengeance, yet sees no conflict with capital punishment.
(b) Note contrast between Romans 12 and 13.
(3) “Capital punishment doesn't deter.”
(a) Deterrence is not the final issue.
(b) Statistics on swift execution policy not available. Swiftness
and certainty are crucial to deterrence.
(c) Clearly the one executed is sufficiently deterred and that is
a gain for society.
E. Women's Roles (Foh, Hurley)
1. In the home
a. Subjection to her husband (Eph. 5:22, Col. 3:18, Tit. 2:5, “headship” =
authority).
b. Joint authority with him (Ex. 20:12, Lev. 19:3, Prov. 23:22).
c. Mutual “ownership” (1 Cor. 7:2-4).
2. In the church
a. I Corinthians 14 context of judging the prophets.
b. I Timothy 2: office of elder in view, not general teaching.
c. General principle: a woman can do anything in the church that an unordained
man can do.
d. Diaconate? Yes, because it is a serving office (Phoebe).
e. Older women as the primary teachers of younger women (Tit. 2:4).
f. Women teaching men and women in non-official capacity, Acts 18:26.
3. In society
a. Does Titus 2:5 require women to be homemakers?
i. The verse seems to presuppose that most women were homemakers,
that being their usual cultural occupation.
ii. But anyone charged with home responsibilities should be busy with
them, as they should be “self-controlled” and “pure.”
201
iii. Prov. 31 implies a wider social role for women, though still centered in
the home.
iv. The calling of Deborah, Ruth, the NT prophetesses, the NT order of
widows, and others indicate that God sometimes calls women to work
outside the home, or without a home-centered focus.
v. It depends on age, gifts, marital status, etc.
vi. Women seem to be uniquely equipped to be the primary nurturers of
young children. See my paper on “The Biblical Doctrine of the Family.”
b. Should female equality be mandated in society?
(i) Although I think women may legitimately work outside the
home under some conditions, I certainly do not think that all
occupations should contain equal populations of male and
female workers. There are good reasons why there are and
should be fewer women than men in many professions.
(ii) Equal pay for equal work? A proper policy must, of course,
take into account the fact that women tend to attain less
seniority than men, tend more often to work part-time, etc.
Better: equal pay for equal value.
(iii) These issues require consideration of individual cases and are
best resolved in the marketplace rather than in government.
PASTORAL AND SOCIAL ETHICS
Lecture Outline, Part Five: Exposition of the Law of God:
Sixth through Tenth Commandments
by John M. Frame
VI. The Sixth Commandment: “Thou shalt not kill.”
Q135: What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?
A135: The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful
endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all thoughts and
purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices,
which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any; by just defense thereof against
violence, patient bearing of the hand of God, quietness of mind, cheerfulness of spirit; a
sober use of meat, drink, physic, sleep, labor, and recreations; by charitable thoughts,
love,
compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness; peaceable, mild and courteous speeches and
behavior; forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of
injuries,
and requiting good for evil; comforting and succoring the distressed, and protecting and
defending the innocent.
Q136: What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?
A136: The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of
ourselves, or of others, except in case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defense;
the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life;
sinful
anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge; all excessive passions, distracting cares;
immoderate use of meat, drink, labor, and recreations; provoking words, oppression,
quarreling, striking, wounding, and: Whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of
any.
A. Basic Thrust
1. God as Lord of life: Genesis 1:20ff, 28ff, 2:7, 17, 3:14-20, 4:8-16, 6:3, 11,
Deuteronomy 30:20, 32:36f, Psalm 139:13-16, John 1:4, 3:15f, 4:14, 5:26,
6:35-48, 6:63-68, 10:10, 12:50, 14:6, 20:31. Physical, spiritual, eternal.
2. As creator and redeemer, then, life is in God's hands. We may take human life
only with his authorization.
3. Meaning of ratzach: “slay”
a) Generally for unlawful, forbidden killing, except in Numbers 35:30, where
the use may be ironic.
b) Not used for animal killings or for mass killings in war.
c) Applies to manslaughter and negligent homicide, even accidental killing
Deuteronomy 4:41ff, 19:4ff, Numbers 35: 22ff Joshua 20:3. The “doctrine of
carefulness.”
(1) Distinctions
(a) Voluntary manslaughter: intent to kill, but no premeditation. Fit of
rage in Gen. 34:25, 49:6.
(b) Involuntary manslaughter: no intent to kill, but behaving in a way
likely to destroy life, as in reckless driving.
IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 3, Number 53, December 31 to January 6, 2001
203
(c) Negligent homicide: failure to take adequate precautions, Ex.
21:29, Deut. 22:8.
(d) Accidental killing, Deut. 19:5.
(2) These are crimes in Scripture, even (d), which modern law would
entirely excuse. One who kills someone accidentally is a “slayer”
(rotzeach).
(3) The penalty: if it is proved that the “slayer” is guilty of manslaughter,
not murder, he must remain in the city of refuge until the death of the
high priest. If he ventures outside the city, the avenger of blood may kill
him without penalty.
(4) The point:
(a) The slayer is impressed with the need to be careful with human life,
to avoid even the possibility of its unjust destruction. The
punishment fits the crime. Now he must be very, very careful with
his own life.
(b) Even accidental killing may not be forgiven until blood is shed (that
of the high priest).
(5) Similarly, Jesus in Matthew 5:21-26 places a high priority on the
sanctity of life. Compare Lev. 19:16-18, 1 John 3:14-16.
(a) He tells us to guard against even the causes of murder (anger - only
a potential cause). Matt. 5:22, Compare James 1:20.
(b) He tells us to avoid even verbal abuse, Matt. 5:22, compare 1 Sam.
25:10, 2 Sam. 16:7-8, Prov. 12:18.
(c) He places a higher priority on reconciliation than on worship.
(d) The only alternative to murder, then, is love. Any lack of love is a
violation of this command (broad thrust).
(6) But some anger is legitimate.
(a) God’s own jealousy, Num. 5:11-31, Deut. 32:21.
(b) Imprecatory Psalms, 69, 109, 137, 139.
(c) Temporary anger with another, Eph. 4:26. Tit. 1:7 says we should
be slow to anger, and God is. That implies there is a legitimate place
for anger.
(d) Unfortunately, righteous and unrighteous anger are often mixed, or
hard to distinguish.
4. The commandment restricts personal vengeance, leaving it in the hands of God
and the civil authorities.
a) O.T. vs. private vengeance, Leviticus 19:18, Proverbs 20: 22, 24:29, Exodus
23:4.
b) N.T.: Matthew 5:21, 38-42, Romans 12:14-21.
c) Right of civil magistrate to avenge, Romans 13:4, O.T., Genesis 9:6.
B. Love of Neighbors and Enemies
1. The OT mandates kindness to enemies, but primarily within Israel, Lev. 19:18,
Prov. 24:17, 25:21, and resident foreigners, Lev. 19:34.
2. In NT
(a) The Great Commission mandates outward-facing love—to all
nations.
204
(b) Even harder: Love to those outside my community-- who cross my
path, Luke 10:25-37.
C. Non-resistance: Matthew 5:38-41, Romans 12:14, 19-21
1. Literal interpretations
a) Invite someone to hit you back? That would be inducing the aggressor to
greater sin.
b) Forego self-defense? But cf. Exodus 22:2-3, biblical teaching concerning
war, punishment. [Note, however, the sacredness of life, in that if someone
breaks into your house in the daytime, you should protect his life (Douma)!]
2. Contextual considerations
a) Verses 43ff deal with love of enemies, of which 38-41 describes an example.
But love is opposed to hatred, not self-defense.
b) The issue in 38-41 seems to be a distortion of the law of talion. That law,
intended as a principle of public justice, has been used to justify personal
vengeance and vindictiveness. Self-defense is not vengeance.
3. Summary of the teaching
a) If someone hits you, do not hit him back out of vengeance or anger.
b) Be prepared to forgive.
4. Seen in this way, the passages do not oppose self-defense or the use of force by
civil magistrates.
D. War
1. War in O.T.
a) Peace, not war, is glorified in Scripture as the consummation of redemption
(Isaiah 2:4, 9:6f, 11:616), Psalm 46:9, 120:6f). David, the man of war
(though a man after God's own heart!) is not permitted to build the temple, I
Chron. 22:18f, 28:3. War is the result of sin, James 4:1f.
b) Herem warfare, Deuteronomy 20:16-18; cf. 7:1ff, Joshua 6-8.
(1) Total destruction of all people and animals.
(2) No booty
(3) Against all cities of the promised land.
c) Non-herem warfare (against cities “at a distance”), Deuteronomy 20:1-15,
l9f, Numbers 21:14, Deuteronomy 7:1.
(1) Priestly address, verses 2-4: God will give victory.
(2) Ritual cleanness, 23:9-14, Joshua 3:5.
(3) Priests blow trumpets, Joshua 6:4, Numbers 31:6.
(4) Offer of peace (demands capitulation), Deuteronomy 20:10-12.
(5) If offer refused and Israel gains victory, put men to sword (20:13), take
women and children prisoner, plunder for yourselves (14), cf. 21:10-14.
d) Exemptions from military service, Deuteronomy 20:5-9, 24:5, Numbers 1:49
(?) new vineyard, engagement, recent marriage, fear, Levites.
e) Do not destroy fruit trees during siege, Deuteronomy 20:19f.
f) Note that all Israel’s wars are holy. In that regard, it would be unwise for us
to import the principles of Deut. 20 into modern warfare.
2. War in N. T.:
a) War from sin, James 4:lf.
b) Non-resistance: above, B.
205
c) Soldiers: exhorted to justice (Luke 3:14), but not told to leave the army.
d) Sword not given to the church, Matthew 26:52, John 18:1-11
e) Gospel will provoke violence, Matthew 10:34, Revelation 11:7, 12:7, 17,
13:7, 19:19.
f) War as metaphor for the Christian life, Ephesians 6, II Corinthians10:3,
I Timothy 1:18, II Timothy 2:4, I Pet. 2:11.
g) Sword given to civil magistrate, Romans 13, Acts 25: 11.
3. Pacifism
a) In early church? Evidence weak either way. Some opposition to military
service based on the pagan oaths and celebrations. Some who opposed it
(Justin, Origen) were willing to pray for military victory. Thus the objection
does not seem to center on the illegitimacy of all force.
b) Tenets
(1) O.T. wars represent a divine condescension to Israel's hardness of heart,
a primitive stage in progressive revelation.
(2) The state is outside the will of God, though God uses it for his
purposes. (Cf. discussion of Yoder under Fifth Commandment) Pacifists
differ among themselves as to the extent to which a believer may
participate in the state.
(3) The Christian's first loyalty is international, to the world-wide body of
Christ. We cannot kill our bothers and sisters in Christ, or indeed
potential converts.
c) Reply
(1) Inadequate view of Old Testament.
(2) Wrong view of the state, especially Romans 13.
(3) The state has a right to kill even professing believers in the just exercise
of its authority. If we say that no one has such a right, we are denying to
God the right to do this in his chosen way.
(4) Just War Theory (Cicero, Augustine, Suarez, Grotius)
(a) Tenets (as summarized by Arthur Holmes in War, Four Christian
Views)
(i) Just cause (only defense)
(ii) Just intention (to secure just peace, not revenge, conquest,
economic gain, ideological supremacy)
(iii) Last resort (after all other methods have been tried and failed)
(iv) Formal declaration (to indicate that the war is an act of
government, not individuals only. Only government may wage
a just war.)
(v) Limited objectives (not total destruction, surrender)
(vi) Proportionate means (limited to what is necessary to repel,
deter future attacks), probability of success.
(vii) Noncombatant immunity (POW's, wounded, civilian
noncombatants immune from attack).
(b) Derived from natural law plus biblical elements.
(5) Some Conclusions
(a) Use of the O.T. Law
206
(i) Israel, as God's holy nation, was given a divine promise of
victory (contingent, of course, upon its faithfulness to the
covenant), Deuteronomy 20:4 - not only for herem war, but for
normal wars as well. I don't believe that any modern nation can
claim that promise.
(ii) Notice also the role of the priesthood, ceremonial cleansings.
Thus, not only the herem wars, but all wars in Israel are “holy”
wars, “wars of the Lord” (Numbers 21:14).
(iii) Restrictions on Israel's military might (above; see also
Deuteronomy 17:16).
(a) The anti-militarist strain in the O.T. is partly a means of
enforcing, underscoring the special divine promise of
victory. The was is won by God's promise, not by horses,
Psalm 20:7, 33:12-22, 76:6, 147:10f, Isaiah 30:15-18,
31:1-3, 36:8-10, Exodus 15:1-5. Since our nation does not
have such a promise, it is not evident that our defenses
ought to be similarly restricted.
(b) Another reason for the restriction against chariots and
horses seems to be that Egypt was the source of such
weapons. Israel is not to trust in alliances with Egypt, but
must remember what God did to Egypt and its chariots in
delivering Israel, Exodus 15:1ff.
(c) On the other hand, these restrictions also seem to be aimed
at discouraging the development of a war-centered
culture, where defense takes priority over all other aspects
of life (worship, family life, production). War is a
necessary evil, not a suitable focus of community life (so I
Chronicles 22:18f). This concern seems to be as valid now
as in the O.T.
(d) The principle, then should be that a nation should acquire
the minimum military might which will give it an adequate
defense.
(iv) Clearly, herem warfare is no longer in effect. Thus no modern
nation should seek the total annihilation of another culture.
(b) Just war tenets (Natural law basis is a weakness)
(i) Just cause
(a) Clearly Scripture warrants warfare only in a just cause.
God is a God of justice.
(b) Since civil obedience is limited by God's law, (I),
Christians should refuse to serve in an unjust war.
(c) A pluralistic society ought to allow the right of selective
conscientious objection, to allow its citizens to object
conscientiously to a particular war.
(d) Rights of soldiers to disobey unjust orders should be
upheld (contra the Nuremberg defense).
207
(e) In general, the only just cause is defense. But this fact
should not be taken to preclude a preemptive strike against
a nation which clearly threatens our security. The “normal
war” of Deuteronomy 20 (a siege war) seems to
presuppose such a situation.
(f) Is it ever legitimate to conscript troops (or give other
military assistance) to defend another nation? (Cf. the U.S.
role in Vietnam.)
(i) A nation is obligated to keep the treaty commitments
it makes, even when those turn out to have been
unwise (Psalm 15:4, Joshua 9, 10:115).
(ii) There is, however, no clear Scriptural authorization
for such treaties, unless they are necessary to the
defense of the nation agreeing to supply such
assistance.
(ii) Just intention: “securing a just peace” is the goal, but achieving
that may involve conquest or drastic cultural reconstruction
(Deuteronomy 20:11-15).
(iii) Last resort: Yes (Deuteronomy 20:10), unless of course, as
defense against present attack.
(iv) Formal declaration
(a) Scripture does restrict war-making to governments.
(b) Cf. the “offer of peace” (Deuteronomy 20:10), the
blowing of trumpets (Joshua 6:4, Numbers 31:6).
(c) But lack of a declaration should not slow defensive
response when a nation is attacked.
(v) Limited objectives: Yes, but note reservation above under ii.
No more herem.
(vi) Proportionate means: Yes. Note argument above under a, iii.
(vii) Noncombatant immunity
(a) In O.T. “normal war,” some noncombatants were killed,
evidently: Deuteronomy 20:13, Numbers 31:15-17.
(b) Preservation of women, children and livestock in
Deuteronomy 20:14 seems to be by permission rather than
commandment. In Numbers 31:15-17 (which was not a
herem war since there was not total destruction), there
was a broader range of killing.
(c) The pattern, then, seems to be that a just war justifies
sufficient killing to achieve its objective - which may
sometimes involve, again, drastic social reconstruction.
(d) Scripture, then, is more realistic than much “just war”
theory, and more applicable to modern problems:
(i) Problem of guerrilla wars where children and women
carry rifles and where combatants and noncombatants
are indistinguishable.
208
(ii) Problem of situations in which a government will
intentionally plant its military forces and equipment in
the midst of civilian populations.
(iii) Nuclear war (see below).
(e) Still, the sixth commandment and the “doctrine of
carefulness” require most scrupulous attention to the
question of whether a given attack is necessary to the
objective.
(6) Nuclear War and Deterrence: The following discussion is an attempt to
apply the above principles. It owes much to Michael Novak's “Moral
Clarity in the Nuclear Age,” National Review (April 1, 1983).
(a) Nature of the Soviet Threat
(i) Communism by its own statements and by its internal logic
requires world conquest.
(ii) Soviet military might
(a) Far superior to west in conventional arms.
(b) Geared to offensive war (while west is geared to defense)
in Europe.
(c) The arms race: “When we built, they (USSR) built; when
we stopped building, they built” (Harold Brown, Defense
Secretary under President Carter.)
(iii) Marxism justifies, and the USSR has always practiced, the
breaking of agreements when in their interest. They express
contempt for “bourgeois formalism.”
(iv) On-site inspection to verify an arms-control agreement would
require an openness drastically foreign to Soviet custom.
Satellite and other long-distance verification can be foiled.
(b) Our Obligation to Defend the Innocent
(i) Defense is a fundamental responsibility of government, Romans
13:3f, Genesis 9:6.
(ii) U.S. is committed to the defense of Europe and Japan, as well
as its own territory.
(c) Problems in Nuclear Deterrence
(i) Possibility of failure, even provocation of attack by USSR
(a) So far it has been successful (35 years!)
(b) Soviets do not fear conventional war, but they appear to
be genuinely afraid of nuclear exchange.
(c) Deterrence, like any strategy, is imperfect; but what
alternative is more likely to work? [see d, below]
(ii) Expensive: a “war on the poor”
(a) It is difficult to justify from Scripture the attempt to make
government responsible for welfare programs.
(b) Nuclear deterrence is far cheaper than an equivalent
conventional deterrent would be.
(c) From 1960-1980, military spending as percentage of GNP
and federal budget declined by nearly ½.
209
(d) Nuclear weapons in 1983 constitute only 9% of the
military budget, 2.9% of the federal budget, 0.6% of GNP.
(iii) “Psychological Damage” of Deterrence Policy (Provoking
sense of terror, despair in society): What if we reinstituted the
draft, sought to raise taxes to produce a comparable
conventional deterrent? What if we simply surrendered?
(iv) Lack of Proportionality: Use of nuclear weapons seems
unthinkable. Would a nuclear war not be a herem war in the
biblical sense - the total destruction of one nation (and likely of
many)? In the “normal wars” of Israel, God commanded them
to preserve even the enemy's fruit trees (Deuteronomy
20:19-20)!
(a) The decision facing us is indeed a terrible one. We must
earnestly seek, and pray for, an alternative [below, d].
(b) The intent of a nuclear deterrence policy, however, is that
it is the best way to prevent a nuclear exchange. If this is
correct, then it is the abandonment of deterrence which
will place the world in the greatest danger.
(c) But doesn't a deterrence policy require a “secondary
intention to use nuclear weapons” (i.e., if our first
intention, to prevent nuclear war, fails, must we not be
prepared to do the unthinkable? Yes, as a policeman
carrying a gun hopes to thereby deter any exchange of
gunfire, but if that hope fails must be prepared to shoot.
(d) It has not been established that one nuclear exchange (say,
the use of tactical nuclear weapons in a European conflict)
will immediately lead to the destruction of all life on earth.
Those who claim this is certain and that we should not
prepare for life after such an exchange are irresponsible.
(e) Destruction of non-combatants: see 5, b, vii, above.
(f) Destruction of fruit trees: would nuclear war be a “war on
the earth?” The commandment to preserve the trees in
Deuteronomy 20 is in context of a siege war. In such a
situation, the enemy (locked in the city) has no access to
the fruit trees. Destroying them would give Israel no
strategic advantage, nor would it help in Israel’s defense.
The only motivation for destroying them would be to ruin
the enemy's economy after the war, perhaps to destroy
even the possibility of using the land again. But such
wanton destruction is forbidden in “normal” war. The
situation in a nuclear exchange, however, is very different.
If nuclear weapons are used (as a last resort, of course!)
then they must be necessary for defense. Destroying fruit
trees in this case is not herem desolation) it is defense.
210
(v) Summary. The problems involved in nuclear deterrence are
formidable. But if there is no alternative, nuclear deterrence,
even the use of nuclear weapons, can be justified.
(d) Possible Alternatives
(i) Simple abandonment of nuclear deterrence without any
strategy to replace it. This would increase the risk, as I see it,
of war and lead eventually to our enslavement.
(ii) Pledge of no first use: could encourage Soviets to undertake
conventional war. Since our conventional deterrent is
inadequate, we would be forced to surrender or to break our
pledge, in which case nuclear war would be made more likely.
(iii) Nuclear freeze:
(a) Would, most likely, allow Soviets to keep their present
advantage.
(b) This could motivate them to use that advantage, contrary
to the wishes of freeze advocates.
(c) They would not be sufficiently motivated to enter arms
reduction negotiations or to make significant concessions
in such negotiations.
(iv) Arms reduction agreement: desirable, but
(a) An adequate one may be many years off.
(b) Adequate inspection may not be acceptable to USSR in
any case.
(c) Granted the history and principle behind Soviet
deceitfulness, we dare not adopt an agreement without
more-than-adequate verification.
(v) Anti-ballistic system: Defensive weapons against nuclear
attack.
(a) In general, this is morally far superior to the present
system. What we have now is not a true defense, but a
policy of retaliation. We cannot stop an attack, only
retaliate after the fact. “Mutual assured destruction” -
MAD. This system is a deterrent and a successful one. But
biblical ethics demands a search for a more strictly
defensive system - one which would prevent loss of life in
a nuclear attack, not double it.
(b) However, ABM systems were halted by SALT I. Although
SALT I has expired, both US and USSR have promised to
continue observing its terms. Thus there may be
complications involved in reviving the ABM idea.
(c) ABM development would certainly proceed on both sides,
suggesting an increased arms race, each side seeking ways
to foil the other's ABM
(d) Technological problems may be too great; but we should
not assume that at this early date.
(vi) Increased commitment to conventional deterrence
211
(a) This may be necessary to reduce the “nuclear threshold”:
If we can counter Soviet conventional attack with
conventional weapons, this will reduce the number of
possible occasions (and temptations) to push the nuclear
button.
(b) But costs of such a commitment are enormous, and such
an increase could take many years. And it would not even
then erase the need for nuclear deterrence.
(e) Conclusion: horrible as is the thought of a nuclear war, the policy
of nuclear deterrence seems, for now, the best hope for avoiding it.
That policy ought to be maintained until/unless an adequate arms
control agreement is reached or a reliable ABM system is
developed.
E. Abortion
1. Exodus 21:22-25
a) Three Interpretations
(1) “Live birth” interpretation (OPC Report, Frame in Thou Shalt not Kill)
(a) Case A (vs. 22)
(i) “fruit depart” - yeled, yatza'
(a) Not a technical expression for abortion
(b) Can naturally describe a premature birth
(c) Other terms (e.g. nefel, shakol) would more naturally
describe abortion or miscarriage.
(ii) “no harm” – indefinite (no lah), so applies to both mother and
child.
(b) Case B (verses 23-25)
(i) “If any harm follow” - to either mother or child
(a) Since referent not specified
(b) Since it applies to either in verse 22.
(ii) Law of talion. implies that destruction of fetus or mother is
capital crime; no difference between them.
(c) Thus on this interpretation the text is strongly anti-abortion.
(i) The situation described is not even abortion per se; there is an
element of accident in it (most likely).
(ii) A fully intentional destruction of the child would, if anything,
be even more heinous.
(2) “Miscarriage” interpretation (Early Kline)
(a) Case A
(i) Language is parallel to extra-biblical miscarriage texts, so it
suggests that a miscarriage has taken place as a result of the
blow.
(ii) Therefore, the “no harm” can pertain only to the mother.
(b) Case B
(i) Apparently, then, this case differs from Case A in that here
harm is done to the mother.
212
(ii) It seems as if the penalty for harming the mother, then, (talion)
is far more severe than the penalty for harming the child (a
fine).
(c) Implications
(i) Some would argue that the difference in penalty indicates a
difference in nature: the mother is a person, the child
something less. Supporting this conclusion is the fact that
monetary penalties are generally not considered sufficient to
avenge the loss of human life.
(a) However, there are exceptions to the last-mentioned
principle. In verse 32 of this chapter we find (in effect)
monetary atonement for the killing of slaves. It would be
precarious to argue from this that the slave is not
considered to be a person.
(b) Thus the difference in penalty does not entail a difference
in personhood.
(c) It can be argued that there is not even a difference in
penalty here. See “Later Kline” interpretation, discussed
below.
(ii) More significantly: Even on this interpretation, the passage
contains a protection for unborn life. The woman is given a
specific protection by the law because she is pregnant. Loss of
the child is a crime. Wanton, intentional destruction of it, we
may presume, would be worse. Thus, even on this
interpretation (dear to “pro-choice” advocates), the text has a
pro-life thrust.
(3) “Later Kline” interpretation (“A Study of Exodus 21:22-25,” Journal of
the E.T.S , 1977.)
(a) Case A
(i) Bepllym (translated “as the judges determine”) actually
indicates “liability to death.”
(ii) Thus the husband has the right to demand any penalty up to the
death penalty.
(iii) The “fine” mentioned would be, in effect, a ransom for the life
of the man who struck the woman see 21:30, Numbers 35:21,
Leviticus 24:18.
(iv) Most likely, the “harm” in this case is done to the woman not
the child. (Opposite of the “live birth” interpretation )
(a) Nagaf suggests a sharp, even fatal blow.
(b) Injury to the woman explains the husband's involvement in
setting the penalty.
(b) Case B
(i) The law of talion here is equivalent to the penalty of Case A.
(a) Talion is not a precise, literal principle. It is consistent
with ransom procedures: Numbers 35:31, Leviticus 24:18,
Deuteronomy 19:15-21.
213
(b) Thus there is no difference in penalty between the two
cases.
(ii) Most likely, harm to the child is in view here
(a) Since the mother is in view in Case A
(b) Since the “harm” is likely not indefinite.
(c) Since parallel middle-Assyrian texts put the woman first,
then the fetus
(iii) No qualification as to the age of the fetus; any unborn child is
in view.
(iv) The language suggests that the fetus is human
(a) “Life for life” in Leviticus 24:18 does apply to animals.
(b) But “eye for eye” and “tooth for tooth” not used for
animals.
(c) Implications
(i) No difference in penalty between death of the mother
and death of the child
(ii) Positive evidence of the child's humanity.
(iii) Legal protection of the child in effect a death penalty
for his destruction.
(d) Significant postscript: Kline notes that this text does not
deal with voluntary abortion. That crime, he says, “was so
abhorrent to the Israelite mind that it was not necessary to
have a specific prohibition dealing with it in the Mosaic
law. The Middle Assyrian Laws attest to the abhorrence
that was felt for this crime even among the heathen nations
around Israel, lacking the illumination of special revelation
though they were. For in those laws a woman guilty of
abortion was condemned to be crucified (Tablet A, law
53). Even if she managed to lose her own life in producing
the abortion, she was still to be impaled and hung up in
shame as an expression of the community's repudiation of
such an abomination. It is hard to imagine a more damning
commentary on what is taking place in enlightened
America today than that provided by this legal witness out
of the conscience of benighted ancient paganism.”
b) Conclusions
(1) On all three interpretations (even the seemingly more liberal
“miscarriage” interpretation) the passage protects unborn life.
(2) Nothing in this discussion warrants the conclusion that the child is of
less value than the mother; certainly there is no implication that he is less
than a person.
(3) Since there is no mention of the age of the fetus on any interpretation,
we must assume that all unborn life of whatever age is protected, i.e
from conception.
214
(4) Which interpretation is right? The “Later Kline” view is the most
ingenious, but the “live birth” view still seems more natural. I defended
the latter some years ago, but the former attracts me.
2. Psalm 139:13-16
a) Use of personal pronouns: David sees himself (“me,” “my,”) in the womb.
b) He exists as a person in the womb from conception (v. 15).
c) Might this usage be anachronistic? (We say “The Pilgrims landed at
Plymouth Rock,” realizing that it wasn't called “Plymouth Rock” at the time.
Maybe David uses “me” and “my” because he doesn't have any other
language to designate the fetus.)
(1) This is possible; thus the present argument is not watertight.
(2) It is significant, however.
(a) This passage reflects a constant pattern of Scriptural usage. See
Jeremiah 1:4, Genesis 25:23ff, 38:27, Job 31:15, 18, Psalm 22:9,
Hosea 12:3.
(b) Scripture never suggests that the unborn child is anything less than
a human person.
3. Psalm 51:5
a) The passage is a confession of David's sin. David traces that sin back to
conception.
b) To suppose that verse 5 speaks of his mother's sin would be entirely out of
keeping with the context and the overall purpose of the Psalm.
c) But sin is a quality which pertains only to persons. It is not a quality of mere
cells or protoplasm or of a part of a woman's body.
d) Thus the text assumes that David was a person from conception.
e) Might this text be a non-literal, poetic description? Yes; but see 2, c above.
4. Judges 13:3-5
(a) Samson is to be a Nazarite from birth, even before birth.
(b) Thus his mother, during her pregnancy, must keep the Nazarite
abstinence (from wine, strong drink, unclean food).
(c) This abstinence begins immediately, before the child is conceived, v.
3. Thus the supposition is that Samson is a Nazarite from
conception.
(d) But being a Nazarite (like being a sinner') seems to presuppose
personhood.
5. Luke 1:35: Jesus becomes incarnate through an act of the Holy Spirit. This act
causes Mary to conceive. Thus from his conception, Jesus is “God made flesh.”
Could he have been, from conception, any less than a person?
6. Obligation to defend the weak and helpless: Psm. 41:1, 72:12, 82:3-4, Amos 4:1,
Isa. 58:5-7, 9-10.
7. Conclusion from Scriptural Evidence
(a) Scripture does not say explicitly that unborn children are persons
from conception.
(b) Passages which suggest this conclusion do contain exegetical
difficulties, so the case is not water-tight.
215
(c) Still, there are passages which, on their most reasonable
interpretations, imply (“good and necessary consequence”) the
personhood of the unborn.
(d) These passages form a regular Scriptural Pattern.
(e) No passages contradict this pattern.
(f) Thus, we have a “highly probable” case for the personhood of the
unborn.
8. Scientific Evidence
(a) This is not a matter than can be resolved by scientific evidence
alone (i.e. without value-presuppositions derived from Scripture).
(i) Recall “naturalistic fallacy” argument.
(ii) “Personhood” is an ethical concept. A person is (among other
things) someone with a right to life. The presence of a right (or
the basis of one) cannot be deduced from statements about
chromosomes, implantation, etc.
(iii) Thus the Scriptural evidence must carry the primary weight.
(b) Still, the scientific evidence is consistent with what we have said
already.
(i) Each fertilized egg contains a full compliment of chromosomes
which differ from those of its mother and those of its father.
Thus in the most obvious sense, it is a distinct individual, not
merely part of its mother's body.
(ii) To be sure, the unborn child is dependent upon his mother's
body for sustenance. But this does not make him less than a
person.
(a) It is conceivable that one day a fertilized egg might be
raised entirely outside the womb. Only technological
limitations prevent this. Thus the connection between the
unborn child and the mother for life support is not
inevitable.
(b) Even after birth, a child is dependent on others for
life-support. In one sense, that dependence never ends.
Thus such dependence may not be taken to refute the
personal nature of the child.
(iii) Science cannot draw a line between a period during pregnancy
when the child is not a person and another period when he is.
(This is related to point a, above.) Some have tried to draw
such a line at various points (implantation, beginning of
brain-wave activity, quickening, viability, birth, after birth), but
without success.
9. The “Doctrine of Carefulness” (VI, A, 3 above)
(a) Is the case for the personhood of the child, then, only probable?
Yes, though highly probable.
(b) Yet it is possible to say with certainty that abortion, in most all
cases, is a sin.
216
(i) The “doctrine of carefulness” warns us against acts which may
even possibly result in the loss of innocent life.
(ii) Since the unborn child is very probably a human being, we dare
not strike it down. We cannot kill it “out of faith” (Romans
14:23).
(iii) Some: “If you can't prove it from Scripture, we are free to act
as we like.” Reply: Imagine a hunting trip. I see a shape in the
woods, but I’m unsure as to whether it is a man or a deer. I
can't prove it is a man (let alone prove from Scripture that it is
a man). Do I then have the right to shoot? Of course not. I
must apply principles of Scripture to my situation according to
my best judgment. If I don't, I am guilty of negligence at best.
10. Can Abortion Ever Be Justified?
(a) Rape, incest, population control, economic need, psychological
health, physical health of mother, possibility (or certainty) of
deformity.
(i) We ought not to brush aside these situations. They can be
terribly traumatic. We must reply to these concerns with love,
gentleness, understanding.
(ii) However, they do not, in the end, provide substantial
arguments for abortion [cf. OPC Report for extensive
discussion).
(iii) The crucial point: none of these situations justifies the killing of
a person. Most people would hesitate to kill an infant already
born for any of these reasons. No one can show that an unborn
infant is in any different ethical category.
(b) To save the life of the mother.
(i) This situation rarely occurs. An ectopic pregnancy would be
one example.
(ii) When it does, however, I would say that abortion is legitimate.
(A) As a means of self-defense, with the child in the role of
unjust aggressor.
(B) Since both persons will otherwise die, it is not wrong, I
think, to put one to death to save the other. But that is a
difficult point.
(c) General rule: abortion can be justified only in situations where, in
an analogous case, one would be justified in killing a person already
born.
F. Death and Dying
1. Definitions of Death
a) Theologically
(1) Separation of soul and body.
(2) Consequence of sin: thus physical death is a symptom and image of
spiritual death and eternal death.
b) Empirically
217
(1) Scripture contains no explicit criteria for determining when death has
occurred.
(2) It does, however, warrant the recognition of death. There is a point after
which the proper treatment of a body is to dispose of it, not to seek its
healing. After that point, contact with the corpse in the Old Covenant
rendered one “unclean.”
(3) The general idea seems to be that someone is dead when signs of life
(generally breathing in Scripture: Genesis 2:7, 6:17, 17:15, 22, I Kings
17:17-22, Job 27:3, 12:10, etc., Mark 15:37) are absent and there is no
possibility of restoring them through current technology.
(4) The “doctrine of carefulness”
(a) A problem arises here. If God's people are to avoid even the
possible destruction of a human life, how can we ever cease
treatment? How can we ever recognize the occurrence of death?
(b) Reply:
(i) The problem here is not, as in the case of abortion, the problem
of whether the cells in view constitute a human person. Here
the cells do constitute a person, whether that person is dead or
alive. Even the corpse is a person (“the person as respects his
body-“ J. Murray).
(ii) A distinction must be drawn between “killing” and “allowing to
die” (see below). The former is always ruled out by the
“doctrine of carefulness.” The latter is only sometimes ruled
out. And a third category, “recognizing death,” is never ruled
out.
(5) Modern criteria
(a) “Brain death”: irrevocable brain damage causing irreversible
cessation of respiration (even if heart is still beating). Generally
indicated by flat EEG, though not always. A flat EEG can
sometimes be restored. But when it is irreversible, then there is
brain death. This is the usual modern medical criterion.
(b) I see this as a refinement of the more phenomenological biblical
criterion (breathing). Brain death is the cause of irreversible
cessation of breathing. With this refinement, we can make better
judgments as to when breathing is irreversibly stopped - when brain
damage of a certain kind is present.
(c) The fact that heartbeat and other organs may be “kept alive” by
artificial means despite brain death should not lead us to question in
these cases whether the patient is truly dead. Clearly, a corpse does
not become alive when we move its heart back and forth. A
distinction must be drawn between natural and artificial sources of
function.
(d) Thus Christians ought to accept the modern concept of brain death,
recognizing, of course, that the concept of irreversibility is
technology dependent, and that it is the responsibility of medical
science to seek ways of reversing presently irreversible cases. We
218
should also recognize that “cessation of all functions of the entire
brain” (Uniform Determination of Death Act) is difficult to
determine unless we are also able to ascertain that heart and lungs
have irreversibly ceased to function.
2. “Mercy Killing”
a. = Killing somebody “for his own good.”
b. Motives
i. To relieve pain. But medications can handle most all pain today.
ii. To prevent a “life not worth living:” severe handicaps, illnesses, injuries.
(A) In Jesus’ kingdom: lepers, the blind, deaf, and lame.
(B) We have no right to decide when life is worth living.
3. Killing and Letting Die
a) This distinction is sometimes described as “active/ passive euthanasia,” when
referring to a case of great suffering or terminal illness. The term
“euthanasia,” however, is very controversial and probably generates more
heat than light in this discussion. It is not very appropriate for cases in
general where “letting die” occurs.
b) Is there a moral distinction between “killing” and “letting die?”
(1) In some cases, yes.
(a) People die every moment without our exerting any effort to save
their lives. Sometimes (e.g., starving children in India) this fact may
be a sin on our part, though I think not always. In any case we
surely cannot be accused of “killing”' these people.
(b) In choosing to save one drowning swimmer, we may let another
die. If we are doing all we can, surely no blame occurs.
(c) If in case B we do not do all we can to help, we have sinned, but
we are not guilty of murder.
(2) In other cases, no.
(a) Refusing heart pills to a person suffering a heart attack. Morally, in
this case, “letting die” is a form of killing.
(b) Unplugging respirator of a rich uncle to inherit his money.
(c) Unplugging respirator too abruptly, without
(d) Withholding “ordinary means” of support for dying person - e.g.
refusing to feed a deformed newborn, so that he dies of starvation
rather than of his affliction. (Note: Distinction between “ordinary"
and “extraordinary” means is not sharp. “Extraordinary,” in general,
means either (1) expensive or difficult or (2) promising no
reasonable hope of benefit.)
c) Terminal illness
(1) When a patient is brain dead (above), both “ordinary” and
“extraordinary” (above) treatment may cease. Organs may be preserved
for transplants.
(2) In patients which are not brain dead, ordinary means of care ought not
to be withheld.
219
(3) Is it ever legitimate to withhold extraordinary care (in the sense of care
which is very expensive, difficult)?
(a) According to Scripture, prolonging one's physical life, though
desirable, is not an absolute priority. John 10:11, 15:13, I John
3:16, II Corinthians 4-5 (note 5:6ff), 11:21-27, Philippians 1:20-26.
Other principles, then, must be considered:
(b) Relieving suffering.
(i) “Mercy killing” as such is contrary to Scripture.
(ii) Still, medical treatment has the function, not only of prolonging
life, but also for relieving suffering. These two goals aren't
always consistent.
(iii) Might it be better to give a treatment that would maximize
freedom from suffering at the expense of reducing life-span?
The apostle Paul (Philippians 1:20ff) would probably have
considered such treatment.
(c) Burdens of others.
(i) Expense of treatment must also be considered in comparison
with the benefit likely to result.
(ii) Would the apostle Paul have wished to bankrupt the diaconate
in order to prolong his physical life in a useless state?
(d) Availability of Resources: It would be wrong to use a respirator
indefinitely for a dying patient when it might be used for another
patient who under such care would recover fully. Benevolence must
always be “selective” because of our finitude and the finitude of our
resources.
4. Suicide
a. Five instances in Scripture: Saul (1 Sam. 31:3-51), Ahitophel (2 Sam. 17:23),
Zimri (1 Kings 16:18-19), Judas (Matt. 27:3-5).
(i) Scripture says nothing good or bad about these acts
themselves.
(ii) 1 Chron. 10:4, 14 tell us that the Lord killed Saul.
(iii) But the larger context of their lives, that led to their suicides,
receives the critique of Scripture.
(iv) But if murder is sinful due to the destruction of God’s image,
then suicide is sinful for the same reason. (Douma)
b. We should try to understand the often tragic situations of those who commit
suicide, without condoning the act. Remind people that in Christ there is hope
for the desperate.
c. Suicide is not the unforgivable sin.
d. Giving up one’s life for one’s friends is actually commendable: Judg. 16:23-
31 (Heb. 11:32, 39), John 15:13.
5. The Dead Body: Cremation, burial
a) Early church resisted cremation
(1) Burial was the biblical custom.
(2) Burial gives more honor to the body as God's image.
220
(3) Burial is a testimony of faith in the resurrection.
b) Modern argument against burial: lack of space, need of space for other
things.
c) In general, it seems to me that the argument for burial still carries weight.
We should avoid superstitions in this area, however. God is as able, e.g., to
resurrect a cremated body as to resurrect a buried one.
G. Obligation to Help
1. Leviticus 19:16 in Jewish translation: “...neither shalt thou stand idly by the blood
of thy neighbor.”
2. Psalm 50:16-22. “When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him.”
3. Prov. 24:11, “Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering
toward slaughter.”
4. Luke 10:30-37.
H. Health and Safety
1. O.T. laws concerning public health: Leviticus 13-15, Numbers 5:1-4,
Deuteronomy 24:8ff.
2. Laws concerning drunkenness.
3. But, again, physical health is not the highest priority (cf. earlier discussion of
terminal illness).
a) Risking health in pursuit of one's calling often necessary: persecution;
breathing smog.
b) All travel entails risk; but without it, normal life is impossible.
c) Alcoholic beverages are considered legitimate in Scripture (Psalm 104:15,
Ecclesiastes 10:19, Isaiah 55:1, John 2:3ff, I Timothy 5:23) even though a
little - alcohol destroys brain cells.
d) The benefit of wine is “merriment.” Sometimes even recreation may take
precedence over physical perfection.
e) Illegal drugs are obviously in a different category.
(i) Usually more dangerous, more addictive.
(ii) A major social problem.
(iii) Christians should abstain in deference to government.
(iv) But in my mind, legalization is an open question.
I. Biological Research (genetic engineering, attempts to increase intelligence, cloning,
test-tube babies, stem cell research, etc.) In general these are valuable developments
of science. Still, there are dangers:
1. Using fertilized eggs for experimentation or therapy, freely destroying them.
2. Danger of elite or government dictating genetic matters, limiting reproductive
freedom.
3. Manipulating people through drugs, behavior therapy, etc. (Slavery).
4. Genetic engineering
a. I have no general objection to the use of genetic engineering to improve the
food supply or to produce new therapies. Obviously much care should be
taken.
b. Genetic selection of human traits:
(i) Should not proceed in such a way that human embryos are
destroyed.
221
(ii) Not wrong to manipulate genes to minimize genetic disease.
(iii) Selecting for desirable physical and mental traits? That too can
be defended.
(iv) Manipulating genes to grow “spare parts” for transplants, etc.,
illegitimate in my view. Each child must be respected and
helped to realize his full personal potential.
J. Ecology
1. Does the Sixth commandment pertain only to human life?
a) Ratzach is used only of humans.
b) Yet Scripture teaches that even animal life has the breath of God.
c) God cares for all life, Job 39-40, Psm. 104:11-30, Prov. 6:6-8, Jonah 4:11,
Matt. 6:26-30.
d) Animals and plants in the coming kingdom, Isa. 11:6-8, Rev. 22:2.
e) Scripture mandates kindness to animals, Ex. 20:10, 23:5, 12, 25:4, Prov.
12:10, care for trees, Deut. 20:19.
f) Kline argues (Images of the Spirit) that the animals and plants reflect God's
theophany in various ways.
g) Scripture protects the lower creation (below). Man is lord of creation, but he
is a steward, responsible to keep, not exploit, the earth.
h) Since human life is dependent on the created environment, respect for human
life entails respect for creation.
i) Therefore, the sixth commandment, though directed specifically to human
life, involves other creatures by patterns of analogy and logic in Scripture.
2. Cultural mandate
a) “Replenish” - the earth is to be maintained so as to give life to many
generations.
b) “Work” (Genesis 2:15) - service of land (abad). Man not only rules the
earth; he serves (Matthew 20:26).
c) Thus the cultural mandate does not justify exploitation of the environment.
3. O.T. Laws (for pollution, see “Health and Safety,” above).
a) Animals may eat freely of land during seventh year (Exodus 23:10f,
Leviticus 25:3-8).
b) Do not muzzle the ox, Deuteronomy 25:4, I Timothy 5:18.
c) Animals receive Sabbath rest, Deuteronomy 5:12ff, Exodus 20:8-10.
d) Kindness to animals, Proverbs 12:10, Exodus 23:5, Deuteronomy 22:4ff,
Hab. 2:17, Jonah 4:11.
e) Good shepherd, John 10:11.
f) Do not destroy fruit trees during siege, Deuteronomy 20:19f.
g) Give rest to the land, Exodus 23:10ff., II Chronicles 36:21.
4. Comments
a. There is a strong biblical basis for ecological responsibility, contrary to Lynn
White, et al. Still, the earth is to be developed, not left in a “pristine state.”
Resources are to be used. God has given men sufficient creativity that we are
able to find ways of using without depleting. Human technology can enrich the
environment.
b. No biblical basis for vegetarianism or trans-species egalitarianism.
222
K. Racial Justice
1. Imperative of reconciliation is part of the Sixth commandment (Matthew
5:21-26, Murray, Principles, 162-167).
2. Question of racial justice is essentially a question of reconciliation.
a) No serious biblical argument for establishing dominance for one race or
another. The curse on Canaan is fulfilled in the Israelite conquest of the
promised land.
b) Similarly, there can be no justification for the view that God established
permanent barriers between the races. Racial intermarriage is not contrary to
Scripture, however many practical problems it may create.
c) The issue:
(1) Africans were kidnapped and sold into slavery in America.
(2) Both kidnapping and the form of slavery found in the American south
are evil, sinful.
(3) Thus, African Americans have a justified grievance that has not been
adequately resolved.
(4) The history of segregation has brought further hardship.
(5) Matthew 5 puts a high priority on resolving this grievance.
d) Problems
(1) Hard to assess blame at this temporal distance.
(2) Hard to find anyone who can speak credibly for blacks or for whites in
general.
(3) But in specific relationships, we can try harder to make up for historical
injustice.
(a) Voluntary affirmative action.
(b) Pressing our own comfort zone in our churches and social circles.
(c) Showing hospitality.
(d) Giving generously.
(4) The goal:
(a) purging of enmities. “Integration” of the races in and of itself is not
imperative.
(b) Godly empowerment (Ellis, Free at Last).
L. Denominational Reconciliation. (Evangelical Reunion)
1. Christ wants the church to be one, John 17.
a) “One in spirit, but not in organization?” No hint of any such distinction in the
text. The church is the body of Christ and is also an organization with
divinely appointed leadership.
b) Vs. the idea of “pluriformity” (B. B. Warfield, R. B. Kuiper) that divisions in
the church are desirable expressions of diversity.
c) Denominations are always due to sin: When some leave one denomination to
start another, either they are guilty of sin, or those in their previous
denomination are, or, more likely, both.
2. Without organizational unity, Presbyterianism is impossible.
a) Scripture gives no authority to “denominations.” “Churches” exist on the
house-level, the city-level, the universal level. A denomination is not a
church.
223
b) Without a unified church, it is impossible to appeal a case to the Christians in
a particular area.
3. Refusal to merge with another body is equivalent to our placing of that body
under discipline. Thus, refusal should never be entertained without judicial
procedure (safeguards). And union should never be refused for reasons of a less
serious character.
VII. The Seventh Commandment: “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”
Q138: What are the duties required in the seventh commandment?
A138: The duties required in the seventh commandment are, chastity in body, mind,
affections, words, and behavior; and the preservation of it in ourselves and others;
watchfulness over the eyes and all the senses; temperance, keeping of chaste company,
modesty in apparel; marriage by those that have not the gift of continency, conjugal love,
and cohabitation; diligent labor in our callings; shunning all occasions of uncleanness,
and
resisting temptations thereunto.
Q139: What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?
A139: The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties
required, are, adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts; all
unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections; all corrupt or filthy
communications, or listening thereunto; wanton looks, impudent or light behavior,
immodest apparel; prohibiting of lawful, and dispensing with unlawful marriages;
allowing,
tolerating, keeping of stews, and resorting to them; entangling vows of single life, undue
delay of marriage; having more wives or husbands than one at the same time; unjust
divorce, or desertion; idleness, gluttony, drunkenness, unchaste company; lascivious
songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays; and all other provocations to, or acts of
uncleanness, either in ourselves or others.
A. Marriage
1. Sexual differentiation is an aspect of the image of God, since the body as well as
spirit belong to the image, Genesis 1:27ff, 5:1f, 9:6, 2:7, Psalm. 94:9.
a. God as unity and diversity.
b. Vs. feminist concept of the interchangeability of roles. See discussion under
fifth commandment.
2. Marriage is a creation ordinance, Gen. 2:21-25.
a. Leaving: the beginning of a new household, authority structure.
b. Cleaving: sexual, and more:
(i) Non-sexual cleaving: loyal service, Ruth 1:4, 2 Sam. 20:2.
(ii) “One flesh:” compare flesh as whole person in Eph. 5:22-23, 29,
31.
3. Purpose of marriage
a. Help for a common task, Gen. 1:28-30.
b. Bringing forth children, same passage.
c. After the Fall, protection against immorality, 1 Cor. 7:2.
d. Sexual pleasure (below, 7).
4. Marriage a good thing.
224
a. Don’t forbid, 1 Cor. 7, 1 Tim. 4:3, 5:14.
b. In some situations (“the present crisis,” 1 Cor. 7:26) it may be inadvisable.
But even then it is better to marry than to be overcome with lust (verse 9).
5. Marriage is a covenant, Ezek. 16:8, Mal. 2:14.
a. Human (Ruth 4:7-13) and divine (Mal. 2:14-16) witnesses.
b. Implies the necessity of a public ceremony.
6. Marriage reflects the covenant between God and his people.
a) Fall, Genesis 2:22-25, 3:7, Jer. 3:8-9, 5:7, Ezekiel 16, 23:37, Hosea 2-3,
Romans 1:23-27. The attitude of rebellion against God defiles also the
marriage covenant. [Cf. discussion on Fifth Commandment] and vice versa.
b) Redemption, Genesis 3:21, Isa. 62:5, Hosea 2, II Corinthians 11:2,
Ephesians 5:22ff, I Corinthians 6:15-20, I Timothy 3:2, 5:9.
7. So a believer should not marry an unbeliever, Deut. 7:3-4, Ezra 9-10, 1 Cor. 7:39,
9:5, 2 Cor. 6:14-18.
8. Polygamy
a) Not explicitly forbidden in the OT.
b) But polygamy creates problems: Gen. 16:4-6, 29:16-24, Deut. 21:15-17, 1
Sam. 1:6-8, regulated.
c) NT forbids church office to polygamists, 1 Tim. 3:6, Tit. 1:6, but evidently
not church membership or the sacraments.
d) But the kind of exclusive, lifelong love characteristic of marriage excludes
polygamy.
(i) God ordained marriage between one man and one woman.
(ii) He forbade adultery; but polygamy necessitates a similar sort
of disloyalty.
9. Sex in marriage
a) A delight, not a necessary evil, Gen. 26:8, Prov. 5:18-19, Song of Songs,
Isa. 62:5.
b) Though parents often choose mates for their children in Scripture, love is
also a prominent motif in creating and maintaining marriages: Gen. 24:67,
29:18-30, 1 Sam. 18:20, 28.
c) Priests, Levites, and Apostles had the right to marry. Not contrary to
exemplary holiness.
d) Wrong to abstain, except for a short time for prayer and fasting, 1 Cor. 7:5-
7.
B. Adultery
1. In Israel, this term is limited to cases in which “a man who is either married or
unmarried has sexual intercourse with a married [or engaged] woman” (Douma,
243). See Deut. 22:24.
a. A married man who has intercourse with a woman who is neither married nor
engaged, he is not considered an adulterer. Bigamy, polygamy, and extramarital
sex of this kind were tolerated in men. In Gen. 38, Tamar is charged
with adultery, but Judah is not.
b. Like a crime of property (compare Lev. 19:20-21), then; but the death
penalty indicates something much more serious.
225
2. In view of the covenant nature of marriage, we may compare adultery to treason.
So the death penalty is appropriate, understandable in the context of Israel’s
special relation to God as his holy people.
C. Prostitution
1. Not treated as seriously as adultery in OT. Seems to be condoned in Gen. 38:15,
Josh. 2 (Rahab) Judg. 16:1, 1 Kings 3.
2. But going to a married prostitute is folly and a road to disaster in Prov. 6:26, 34-
35, 7:19-27.
3. Adultery and prostitution in the same category, Isa. 57:3, Ezek. 16:15-19, 23:1-
49.
4. Prostitution and God’s presence (cultic prostitution):
a) The daughter of a priest should never be a prostitute, Lev. 21:9
b) Do not bring a prostitute into the presence of God, Deut. 23:17-18. Even
marital sex is inappropriate when God draws near, Ex. 19:15.
5. Certainly, then, prostitution is in the category of ervath dabar (Deut. 24:1) or
porneia (Acts 15:20, 29, 1 Cor. 6:18.). Explicitly forbidden in 1 Cor. 6:13-14.
D. Pre-marital Sex
1. Rape of married or betrothed woman: death penalty for rapist, Deuteronomy
22:25-27. Her only responsibility is to cry for help.
2. Rape (seduction) of virgin, Deuteronomy 22:28f, Exodus 22:16f: He must marry
her without possibility of divorce or pay a dowry, as the girl's father requires.
3. Otherwise, a woman found not to be a virgin before marriage is considered in the
same category as the adulteress, Deuteronomy 22:13-21. If she did not raise the
issue [as 1, 2 above], she is assumed to have consented.
4. According to I Corinthians 7, marriage is the only solution to pre-marital sexual
urges.
5. Thus all premarital intercourse is included in the porneia prohibited in I
Corinthians 6:18.
E. Lust, Matthew 5:27f, I Corinthians 7:9.
1. The above discussion, for the most part, pertains to sexual intercourse as such.
Many, however, who would not be guilty of extra-marital intercourse are
involved in sexual activity in a broader sense: necking, petting, kissing,
masturbation, use of pornography, etc. outside of marriage.
a) Scripture says little about these activities as such. Women were chaperoned
in biblical times before marriage, and they did not have the mobility of young
people today. Thus it is unlikely that there was much opportunity for sexual
activity short of intercourse.
b) Are there, then, any biblical principles which apply to these matters? It seems
the best we can do is to analyze the biblical teaching concerning lust.
2. Negatively:
a) Lust is not sexual desire as such. That is something good, a God-given
incentive toward marriage.
b) Nor is it sexual desire for a particular person other than a spouse.
(1) I Corinthians 7:9 does not condemn the desire as such, only a desire
which cannot be controlled.
226
(2) There is no condemnation of either (A) sexual desire which leads to
marriage or (B) sexual desire which remains controllable and controlled.
c) Nor is it lustful merely to imagine sexual relationships. If such imaginings are
forbidden, it is difficult to conceive of how sex education could proceed.
d) Similarly, lust should not be confused with temptation. One may be tempted
without sinning (cf. Jesus in Hebrews 4:15). We ought to avoid temptation
and to seek release from temptation in prayer. But if temptation comes, we
are not guilty on that account. (Note: if “homosexual orientation” is used to
refer only to persons who frequently experience homosexual temptations,
then in that sense “homosexual orientation” is not sinful.)
3. Positively, Lust is the desire to break God's law.
(1) Cf. Tenth Commandment, Jesus' condemnation of anger.
(2) One may see a certain sexual relationship as desirable without wanting
to break God's law for it. Eve was not wrong in thinking the fruit
desirable, but in thinking that breaking God's law was desirable.
(3) In the spirit of the WLC, we should surely also avoid occasions of lust,
situations in which we are likely to be tempted.
4. Sexual activity short of intercourse.
a) Some forms of sexual activity (kissing, etc.) might take place without any
desire to break God's law. Thus such activities do not necessarily involve
lust.
b) People differ as to the situations in which they are exposed to temptation.
c) However, we need to guard ourselves in such activities.
d) Where draw the line? Discernment needed, honesty, maturity. Remember
that lust is a matter of the heart, not merely of “crossing a line.”
e) Masturbation, even orgasms in sleep, almost always involve lust in this
sense. These are very common and are not as serious as adultery, but they do
illustrate the depth of sin in the human heart.
F. Birth Control
1. The Roman Catholic Argument
a) Based on natural law, primarily.
b) Procreation is the essential purpose of sexual activity; frustration of this
purpose is “unnatural.”
2. Scriptural considerations
a) The cultural mandate (“replenish the earth”) militates against birth control.
(1) Conception is gift from God.
(2) Blessing on large families: Abraham, Psalm 127:3-5.
(3) The family as channel of God's grace.
b) But one's calling may not allow for marriage, in which case he is excused
from literal compliance with the cultural mandate, I Corinthians 7.
c) If this is the case, then surely the calling of a married couple might be
inconsistent with their having a maximum number of children.
d) Procreation in Scripture is not the only function of sexual activity, nor is it
clearly a necessary function (else we would expect prohibitions against
sexual activity for women following menopause, etc.)
227
e) It is not clear that condoms, etc., are any more “artificial” or “unnatural”
than the “rhythm method” sanctioned by the Roman Church. Indeed,
abstinence itself, within marriage, is quite unnatural.
3. “Overpopulation argument” invalid
a) We will always need a new generation.
b) It is best that there be a large percentage of young people in the population.
c) The “population problem” is essentially a problem of economic organization.
New Jersey is more densely populated than India.
d) Each child will either be part of the problem or part of the solution. We have
good reason to believe that children from Christian homes, in general, will be
part of the solution. They will not exploit, but multiply, the earth's resources.
4. Conclusion: birth control permissible, but probably overused among Christians.
VIII. The Eighth Commandment: “Thou shalt not steal.”
Q141: What are the duties required in the eighth commandment?
A141: The duties required in the eighth commandment are, truth, faithfulness, and
justice in contracts and commerce between man and man; rendering to everyone his
due; restitution of goods unlawfully detained from the right owners thereof; giving and
lending freely, according to our abilities, and the necessities of others; moderation of
our judgments, wills, and affections concerning worldly goods; a provident care and
study to get, keep, use, and dispose these things which are necessary and convenient
for the sustentation of our nature, and suitable to our condition; a lawful calling, and
diligence in it; frugality; avoiding unnecessary lawsuits and suretyship, or other like
engagements; and an endeavor, by all just and lawful means, to procure, preserve, and
further the wealth and outward estate of others, as well as our own.
Q142: What are the sins forbidden in the eighth commandment?
A142: The sins forbidden in the eighth commandment, besides the neglect of the
duties required, are, theft, robbery, man-stealing, and receiving anything that is stolen;
fraudulent dealing, false weights and measures, removing land marks, injustice and
unfaithfulness in contracts between man and man, or in matters of trust; oppression,
extortion, usury, bribery, vexatious lawsuits, unjust enclosures and depopulations;
engrossing commodities to enhance the price; unlawful callings, and all other unjust or
sinful ways of taking or withholding from our neighbor what belongs to him, or of
enriching ourselves; covetousness; inordinate prizing and affecting worldly goods;
distrustful and distracting cares and studies in getting, keeping, and using them; envying
at the prosperity of others; as likewise idleness, prodigality, wasteful gaming; and all
other ways whereby we do unduly prejudice our own outward estate, and defrauding
ourselves of the due use and comfort of that estate which God hath given us.
A. Place in the Decalogue
1. The creation ordinance of labor-property, following those of worship-Sabbath
and marriage-family.
2. Relations among these:
a) Normative, existential, situational
b) Faith, love hope
228
c) Pattern of responsibility
(1) Worship is comprehensive.
(2) Family is to be respected “unto the Lord.”
(3) Property is a stewardship given to the family. It represents the blessing
sanction of the Fifth Commandment. Obligation and enjoyment.
B. Property
1. Stewardship
a. God is the ultimate owner of all things (Ex. 19:5, Psm. 24:1, 50:10, Hos.
9:3).
b. But he gives property to human beings, to administer in his name (Gen. 1:28-
30, 1 Sam. 2:7, Job 1:21, Psm. 8:6, 115:16).
c. So we are pilgrims on the earth, Lev. 25:23.
d. So land in Israel cannot be sold in perpetuity, Lev. 25:10-55.
2. Private Property
a. We own property, not in relation to God, but in relation to other people
(Gen. 23:3-8, 1 Kings 21:3-6, Acts 4:4, 12:12, 16:14-15, 21:8). The land is
Israel’s (Ex. 32:13), but ultimately God’s (Hos. 9:3).
b. Not sinful to be wealthy: Luke 8:3, 1 Cor. 1:26, 1 Tim. 6:17, Jas. 2:2.
(i) Wealth is a blessing from the Lord, Prov. 10:4, 32.
(ii) Great saints were sometimes wealthy: Abraham, David. None
is rebuked for his wealth as such; rather, their wealth is a good
gift of God.
(iii) Not wrong to desire material things (Mark 10:29-30), but we
shouldn’t be preoccupied with that desire (Matt. 6:19-20, 1
Tim. 6:7).
(iv) Israel commanded to feast before the Lord, Deut. 12:6-7, 17-
19, 14:22-23, Job 1 (though Job is generous, 31:16-17).
(v) Jesus
(a) attended a wedding feast, supplied additional wine (John
2),
(b) ate with the wealthy, Luke 7:36-50, 11:37, 14:1, 12, Mark
14:7.
(c) Praised Mary’s extravagant homage, John 12:7-8, against
Judas’s rhetoric of compassion.
(vi) God has given us all things richly to enjoy, 1 Tim. 6:17.
c. But there are spiritual dangers in both wealth and poverty. The best state is
contentment with whatever the Lord supplies. Prov. 30:8, 1 Tim. 6:8-10.
d. We should be willing to lose our material goods for God’s purposes (Matt.
19:16-29, 1 Cor. 7:29-31).
e. We are accountable to God for our use of wealth, Matt. 25:14-31.
f. God expects us to use our resources compassionately, Acts 2:44-45, 32-37,
Eph. 4:28.
C. Work
1. Work ethic necessitated by cultural mandate, Gen. 1:28-30.
2. After the fall, toilsome, Gen. 3:17-19, Psm. 90:10.
229
3. Work, nevertheless, continues to be necessary and beneficial, Deut. 16:15, 1
Thess. 4:11-12.
a) Vs. laziness, Prov. 6:6-11, 12:24.
b) Work as alternative to theft, Eph. 4:28.
c) No work, no food, 2 Thess. 3:10.
4. Obligation to increase resources committed to us, Matt. 25:24-30.
D. Stealing
1. “Property rights” are human rights. To take one's possessions is to take his
inheritance, to attack his dignity, his freedom.
2. In biblical law, the penalty for theft is restitution. Where restitution cannot be
made, slavery. See Fifth Commandment under “punishment.”
3. Range of application
a) Kidnapping, 1 Tim. 1:10. A capital crime, Ex. 21:16, Deut. 24:7.
b) Swindling, Jer. 22:13-17, Amos 8:4-6, Hab. 2:9-12.
c) Stealing from widows, orphans especially heinous, Matt. 23:14.
d) Defrauding employees, James 5:4.
e) Land theft, Isa. 5:8.
f) Unjust weights, Lev. 19:35, Deut. 25:15.
g) Misleading someone for economic gain, Prov. 20:14.
h) General oppression of the poor, James 2:6.
4. “Broader” applications:
a) Robbing God of tithes and offerings, Malachi 3:812, Joshua 7:11.
b) Stealing affection, II Samuel 15:6
c) False shepherds as thieves and robbers, John l0:lff
d) Lack of punctuality (stealing time)
e) Stealing honor (plagiarism, gossip)
f) Failure to meet any obligation (stealing as a “perspective” on all sin)
5. May we steal to keep from starving? Prov. 6:30-31: not as serious a sin as others,
but restitution should be made.
E. Economic Systems
1. Socialism no biblical warrant (f earlier discussion of Marx, Part I).
a) O.T.
(1) Government in Israel was limited, supported only by the half-shekel
head-tax and the tribute of foreign nations (including spoils of war. No
income tax, property tax, sales tax. Thus government simply did not
have the resources to “manage” the nation's economy.
(2) Government's assigned functions are limited to defense and the carrying
out of the judicial penalties.
(3) Private property is affirmed and protected by the law [above].
(4) Care of the poor is done by family, church and individuals [below].
(5) Education is the responsibility of the family, primarily. Education in
specialized fields is carried on by the institutions that function in those
fields. Hence the Levites are involved in teaching religion, farmers in
teaching farming, the state in teaching statecraft, etc. “Apprenticeship
230
model.” Surely there is no place for a state monopoly on education as
we see developing today.
(6) Government-induced inflation, economic controls, eminent domain,
inheritance tax, other unjust taxation, fit the biblical definition of theft.
b) N.T.
(1) N.T. repeats the O.T. prohibition of stealing, work-ethic: Ephesians
4:28, I Thessalonians 4:11f., II Thessalonians 3:8-15.
(2) The “massive sharing” of Acts 4:32-5:11.
(a) Strictly voluntary, therefore non-socialistic: 5:4.
(b) It had nothing to do with government.
(c) Most likely, an emergency situation in view.
(i) Large numbers of new believers, immature.
(ii) Persecution.
(iii) Displacement from homes.
(iv) Famine?
(d) This pattern not repeated elsewhere in the N.T.
(e) A model for us? Yes, in the sense that we ought to be willing to
respond as readily as they in the situation of need.
c) More general considerations
(1) Move toward socialism in modern times represents a turning away from
God, regarding the state as Lord and Savior. (Rushdoony).
(2) Socialism has never been economically successful. “Planning” is best
done by all the people, not an elite.
(3) Socialism always tends toward totalitarianism. You cannot have a truly
“planned” economy unless everything is controlled.
(4) Socialism tends toward war and world conquest: A state cannot have
full control of its own economy. Thus socialism presupposes a divine
state: omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent.
(5) Is socialism “compassionate?” Many compassionate people misguidedly
become socialists. However:
(a) Socialist states are not compassionate with their own resources;
rather they seek to maximize their own possessions and power.
They are “compassionate” only with other people's money, which
they take away by force.
(b) Some short-term gains in equity may result from socialism.
(i) Often at an enormous price: mass murders in Russia and China.
(ii) Claims to advances in the condition of the poor must be taken
with a grain of salt. Cuba is now highly literate; but it was the
most literate Latin-American nation before Castro, and there is
no proof that his policies created the gains.
(iii) In the long run, socialist nations survive only through the
generosity of the free world.
(c) In fact, socialism's appeal is entirely selfish: people wanting more
for themselves. Its philosophical background is economic
determinism.
231
(d) Capitalism, though often criticized (and praised!) for its appeal to
self-interest, also has altruistic elements (George Gilder, Wealth
and Poverty). An entrepreneur is one who seeks to meet a need in
society, and/or to satisfy desires of other people.
2. Scriptural limits on free enterprise: Biblical economics is not socialist, nor is it
laissez-faire in the sense of granting us autonomy in the use of wealth.
a) Stewardship: God is the primary owner of all wealth.
b) Laws governing economics, treatment of the poor (below). Probably these
would have tended to lessen the gap between rich and poor.
c) Biblical teachings about the proper attitude toward wealth.
d) “Just price,” or “what the market will bear?”
(1) Usually we determine the latter by the former. What other measure is
there?
(2) But is it just to take windfall profits in market distortions, e.g. from
disaster victims?
F. Tithing, Taxation
1. For description of the several kinds of biblical tithes, see Rushdoony-, Institutes
of Biblical Law.
2. Tithes are on income, not wealth.
3. Tithes are on agricultural production, not general income
a) This fact suggests the need for some adjustment in a non-agricultural
society.
b) It also suggests a connection between the tithe principle and Israel's unique
stewardship over the land of promise.
4. Still, it is helpful to have a general idea of what God wants us to give for the
needs of the church-organization.
5. The N.T. principle: free-will offering, from the heart. But can we claim to be
giving freely, without covetousness, if we give even less than the O.T. people of
God?
6. Purposes of the tithe:
a. To the Levites, who have no material inheritance, but have responsibilities in
teaching, leading worship, Num. 18:21.
b. They also tithe to the Lord, Num. 18:28, particularly to the priesthood.
c. Also, the stranger, fatherless, and widows are to benefit, Deut. 26:12-13.
7. Very little money authorized in taxes for government purposes. The “poll tax”
(Exodus 30:11-16) was a half-shekel of silver, the same for all. No land tax,
income tax, sales tax, inheritance tax. Limited government. But of course
government always takes what it wants.
G. Usury, Exodus 22:25-27, Leviticus 25:35-38, Deuteronomy 23:19f, Luke 6:34f.
1. Interest on commercial loans is legitimate, Luke 19:23, Matthew 25:27.
2. Interest-free loans are mandated for charitable purposes.
3. In my view, this legislation presupposes an inflation free society. Thus the
“general equity” of these laws would permit the taking of sufficient interest to
keep pace with inflation.
4. Compassionate lending:
a) The borrower gets his cloak back so he can keep warm, Ex. 22:26-27.
232
b) Don’t take a person’s means of livelihood as collateral, Deut. 24:6.
H. Wealth and Poverty; World Hunger (Sider vs. Chilton)
1. The Current Problem (situational perspective)
a) Statistics
(1) Inequalities
(a) 6% of the people use 33% of the resources
(b) 1/3 of the world’s population has annual income of under $100 (vs.
$5600 in the US - 1976).
(c) Problems with these statistics.
(i) Population estimates difficult
(ii) May not take some things into account.
(a) Barter
(b) Communal labor (help from neighbors, etc.)
(c) Underground economy
(d) Psychic income (How rich do you feel?)
(e) Relative self-sufficiency (through hunting, fishing,
gathering, gardening)
(f) Different need levels in different locations (heat, clothing,
taxes, etc.)
(g) Government social services
(h) Different kinds of “consumption” (industrial vs. private,
defense spending, etc.)
(iii) Scripture does not mandate absolute equality (see below).
(2) Hunger
(a) 460 million not getting enough calories to live ('76)
(b) ½ billion not getting enough protein.
(c) Problems
(i) Margins for error
(ii) Some may have a poor diet simply because of ignorance, or
because of a free decision to spend their resources on
something else.
(d) Still, these statistics are alarming. Scripture doesn't mandate
“equality,” but does call us to feed the hungry, to have compassion
on real need.
b) Possible Causes
(1) Lack of natural resources
(a) Natural resources are unevenly distributed.
(b) But some nations, relatively poor in natural resources, have
flourishing economies: Japan, Taiwan, Germany. (These import
nearly all their oil.)
(c) Sider himself says that the nations of the third world have much to
offer the rest of us, but are held down by unjust economic
structures.
(2) Population growth
(a) Striking statistics here; previously thought to be a crucial “cause.”
233
(b) Lately, though, calls for population control have been attacked as
racist.
(c) Actually, richer countries are often most densely populated (Sider,
53).
(d) Poor countries can cut population growth quickly as education,
health services improve (Sider).
(e) Chilton: population is an advantage when the people are
productive; hence biblical encouragement to large covenant
families.
(3) Consumption by the Rich
(a) Argument: US use of beef pushes up price of grain, harms the poor.
(b) Response
(i) In general, it is not the case that wealth causes poverty. If it
were, then why doesn't US wealth cause poverty in Japan?
(ii) Sider admits (204f) that even if America abstained from beef,
this would make little difference. It would simply result in less
production of grain or larger surpluses.
(iii) Certainly if many people ate more simply, that would help
some - if they gave the money saved to relief programs. But
this raises the question of how much one ought to give away.
(See “Tithing” above, also discussion below.)
(iv) Profit-Seeking
(a) Argument: American companies make enormous profits
from cheap third-world products and labor
(b) Mavrodes: what are the alternatives?
(i) Paying higher wages would result in higher prices
which the third world, among others, would have to
pay.
(ii) Providing goods at lower costs to the third world
would discourage local production, create a situation
of permanent dependence.
(iii) If American business stayed out of the third world,
the result would be greater unemployment.
(iv) Sider's suggestion: food for work.
If the work is useful work, they can earn their food.
If it is not, then we ought not to encourage it.
(v) Government Actions: tariff policies, commodity agreements
which often have bad effects on the poor.
(a) Chilton: This is socialism; eliminate
(b) Frame: Yes, but as long as we have these things, we ought
to try to make them more just. (Theonomy is weak in
providing interim solutions - suggestions on improving
society short of total reconstruction.) “Negative income
tax.”
(vi) Fraud, bribery
(a) Should seek to avoid this.
234
(b) But is probably has little impact on the total picture
(c) Vs. limited liability corporations in which no one is
answerable (Hebden-Taylor)
(vii) Religion
(a) India's sacred cows eat enough grain to feed 1,200,000
people.
(b) Work-ethic, faith in the future. Galbraith: The main
problem in poor nations is the accommodation to poverty,
the perception of the people that nothing can be done.
Adjustment to welfare-states
2. Biblical Principles
a) God and the Poor: Is God “on their side?”
(1) Some rich favored by God (Abraham, David)
(2) Wealth is a covenant blessing.
(3) God forbids favoritism, either to poor or to rich, Exodus 23:3, Leviticus
19:15.
(4) Still, the poor are often oppressed in this sinful world.
(5) God will vindicate the believing poor who are oppressed.
b) Private property
(1) Scripture affirms this.
(a) Inheritance, possession
(b) Implicit in eighth commandment
(2) Sider also affirms this (113f, 100, 209), but Chilton doesn't seem to
believe him
(3) But Scripture does not endorse laissez faire. We do not have the right
to do anything we like with our property.
(a) Stewardship
(b) Laws governing economics, treatment of the poor.
(c) Chilton, too, opposes “anarchic,” “antinomian” or “autonomous”
capitalism (6, 181).
c) Attitude toward wealth
(1) Possessions not inherently evil (Sider, 125ff; Chilton thinks he doesn't
really mean it, 895.)
(2) Wealth is a blessing [above, a]
(3) We ought not to set our heart on riches.
(4) Be prudent, plan; but don't be “anxious.”
(5) Be generous. [See d, below].
d) Individual use of wealth
(1) 0. T. Poor Laws
(a) Principle of family inheritance not compromised by taxations,
eminent domain.
(b) Interest-free loans [D, above], Deut. 15:8, 11.
(c) Gleaning, Ex. 23:11, Lev. 19:10, 23:22.
(d) Loans remitted in Sabbatical year
(e) Sale of land remitted in Jubilee
235
(f) Household apprenticeship [See “slavery” under V. Biblical slavery
was a way of (among other things) helping financial incompetents
to develop the ability to support themselves as free persons.]
(g) Tithes: Levites provided educational, diaconal services.
Deuteronomy 14:27-29.
(h) Instruction about wisdom in spending.
(i) Prohibition of any favoritism on economic grounds, bribery in
administration of justice [above, a]
(j) “There should be no poor among you” (Deut. 15:4-5) but there will
be (Deut. 15:11, John 12:8).
(k) Present relevance:
(i) Jubilee probably cannot be reinstituted, since it was dependent
upon God's original parceling out of the promised land. The
church today does not have the responsibility to parcel out
land.
(ii) For interest-free loans, see “Usury,” above.
(iii) Much remains that ought to be imitated today.
(iv) As with O.T. Israel, the church can provide a “model” of
responsibility to love. Inner-city communities of Christians.
(2) N.T. “Massive Sharing,” Acts 2:44f, 4:32-5:11.
(a) Not forced (5:4), but spontaneous.
(b) No support here for government-imposed economic control.
(c) Perhaps related to special economic problems.
(i) New believers being fired from jobs, persecuted.
(ii) Preparation for the disaster of A.D. 70.
(d) Still, their openness, willingness to share at great sacrifice, is a
model for us today.
(3) Inheritance: Still, Scripture says that supporting one's family and leaving
them an inheritance is a worthy use of one's resources, Proverbs22.
(4) Dominion: We ought not to feel guilty about enjoying the fruits of our
labors, a blessing of God.
(a) If no one were rich, there would be no money available for
investment, which would harm everybody.
(b) Consumer spending does contribute to the economy.
(c) Consumer spending ( a nice house, car, etc.) is a way to invest, to
protect one's resources so as to pass along a larger inheritance.
(5) “Where do I draw the line?” Spiritual discernment needed. Do not pass
by some one who is dying by the road!
e) Principle of Selective Benevolence (cf. II)
(1) “Lifeboat ethics” of Garrett Hardin, “triage”: Help only those who will
benefit from help, abandon the rest.
(2) No one has past the point where all help is useless.
(3) Still, we ought not to feel guilty when we find that we can't help
everyone. Our resources are limited.
f) The Goal
236
(1) “Equality” in II Corinthians 8:13-15. Not absolute equality, but meeting
of needs. No Christian ought to go without food, shelter.
(2) Serious implementation of the diaconate could certainly wipe out hunger
among Christians, Cf. Mormons.
(3) The love shown in the Christian community and the success of that love
in relieving basic needs could serve as a powerful witness to the world.
I. Mercy Ministry
1. Do good to all, especially of the household of faith, Gal. 6:10.
2. That is, our first responsibility is to our own families, 1 Tim. 5:4-10, then to the
poor of the church, 5:3, then to any needy person who comes across our path,
Luke 10:30-37.
3. Emperor Julian the Apostate: The Christians fed their own poor, and then they
fed ours.
4. When we have time only for a handout, give food, bus tickets, etc., rather than
cash.
5. If a longer term relationship is possible, offer to a poor person an opportunity to
change his life.
a) Through the gospel.
b) Discipleship, including work experience.
c) Counseling, including employment and financial.
J. Gambling
1. Arguments against
a) Can be linked to worship of fate, chance.
b) Can be psychologically addictive.
c) Can involve covetousness.
d) Can be a waste of time and money, a cause of poverty.
e) Can be thought of as a substitute for useful work.
f) Even where legal, often controlled by organized crime, etc.
2. Reply: Although all of these things can be linked with gambling, I don't think that
gambling necessarily involves any of them. One might regard it simply as a game,
spending no more on it than upon any other amusement. One can avoid
organized crime by restricting oneself to private football pools or Church Bingo
games. But promoting gambling in the public square does more harm than good.
237
IX. The Ninth Commandment: “Thou shard not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”
(Exodus: sheqer, falsehood; Deuteronomy: shaw vanity [cf. III])
Q144: What are the duties required in the ninth commandment?
A144: The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and
promoting of truth between man and man, and the good name of our neighbor, as well
as our own; appearing and standing for the truth; and from the heart, sincerely, freely,
clearly, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and
justice, and in all other things whatsoever; a charitable esteem of our neighbors; loving,
desiring, and rejoicing in their good name; sorrowing for, and covering of their
infirmities; freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces, defending their innocency; a
ready receiving of a good report, and unwillingness to admit of an evil report,
concerning them; discouraging talebearers, flatterers, and slanderers; love and care of
our own good name, and defending it when need requireth; keeping of lawful promises;
studying and practicing of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good
report.
Q145: What are the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment?
A145: The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all prejudicing the truth, and
the good name of our neighbors, as well as our own, especially in public judicature;
giving false evidence, suborning false witnesses, wittingly appearing and pleading for an
evil cause, outfacing and overbearing the truth; passing unjust sentence, calling evil
good, and good evil; rewarding the wicked according to the work of the righteous, and
the righteous according to the work of the wicked; forgery, concealing the truth, undue
silence in a just cause, and holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof
from ourselves, or complaint to others; speaking the truth unseasonably, or maliciously
to a wrong end, or perverting it to a wrong meaning, or in doubtful and equivocal
expressions, to the prejudice of truth or justice; speaking untruth, lying, slandering,
backbiting, detracting, tale bearing, whispering, scoffing, reviling, rash, harsh, and
partial censuring; misconstructing intentions, words, and actions; flattering,
vainglorious boasting, thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or
others; denying the gifts and graces of God; aggravating smaller faults; hiding,
excusing, or extenuating of sins, when called to a free confession; unnecessary
discovering of infirmities; raising false rumors, receiving and countenancing evil
reports, and stopping our ears against just defense; evil suspicion; envying or grieving
at the deserved credit of any, endeavoring or desiring to impair it, rejoicing in their
disgrace and infamy; scornful contempt, fond admiration; breach of lawful promises;
neglecting such things as are of good report, and practicing, or not avoiding ourselves,
or not hindering: What we can in others, such things as procure an ill name.
A. Theological Background
1. Legal witness is the focal meaning. Note connection with property, Leviticus
6:1-7.
a. Legal witnesses held sway over life and death, 1 Kings 21:13, Matt. 26:60-
61, Acts 7:13-14. Witness must cast first stone, Deeut. 17:7.
b. One witness insufficient for death penalty, Deut. 17:6, 19:15.
238
c. A witness found to be false receives the punishment the accused would have
received, Deut. 19:16-19.
2. Similarly, vs partial judges, Lev. 19:15, Ex. 23:1-3. Vs. bribes, Ex. 18:21, Deut.
16:18-20.
3. The commandment also deals with lying more generally.
a) Note relation to other commandments in Hosea 4:2, Proverbs 6:19.
b) General biblical polemic against lies, Psalm. 31:18, 63:11, 101:7, 119:29,
163, Proverbs 6:17, 12:22, 13:5, 19:5, 9, Ephesians 4:25, I John 2:21,
Revelation 21:27, 22:15.
c) Satan as father of lies, John 8:44.
d) Sinners dominated by lies, Rom. 1:25, 3:8-18, 2 Cor. 4:2-4, 2 Thess. 2:9-12.
e) False prophecy, Deut. 13:1-18.
4. Other verbal ways of harming one’s neighbor
a) Gossip, slander, Psm. 15:3, Prov. 11:13, 16:28, 20:19, 25:23, 26:20, Rom.
1:29, 30, 2 Cor. 12:20, Gal. 5:19-20, 1 Tim. 5:13, 3 John 10, Jude 9 (!)
How we love it: Prov. 18:8, 26:22!
b) Judging rashly, 2 Sam. 16:4, 19:24-28, John 9:2, Matt. 7:1-3.
c) Twisting someone’s words, Matt. 26:61, John 2:19.
d) Failing to mind your own business, 1 Thess. 4:11.
e) Putting the worst construction on someone’s words or actions. We have the
responsibility to give one another the benefit of the doubt; “innocent until
proved guilty.” No accusation unless witnesses.
5. The power of the tongue for evil, Jas. 3:2-10, Rom. 3:10ff. Neighbor
a) Fellow Israelite, even when enemy, Ex. 23:4-5, Prov. 24:1, 7, 25:21.
b) NT
(1) In church, first of all: Rom. 15:2, James 4:12, Eph. 4:25.
(2) But also those outside, Luke 10:25-37, Rom. 13:8-9, Tit. 3:4.
6. Broader perspectives: Witness is not only something we do (with the lips); it is
something we are, Isaiah 43, Acts 1:8, Rev. 3:14, John 18:37. Any sin, therefore,
is a “false witness.”
B. Are Lies Ever Justifiable?
1. “Jocular” lies: jokes and fictitious stories not wrong. There are some in Scripture.
But we should avoid those that really hurt somebody, Prov. 26:12-13.
2. “Polite” lies: petty flatteries required by ettiquette.
a) “Sincerely yours” “I’ve had enough, thanks.”
b) Such expressions are not normally understood literally, but are conventional
means of maintaining civility in place of brutal honesty.
c) These expressions can be abused; some flattery is destructive.
d) Some forms of language misunderstood: creedal subscription often taken as
merely formal.
3. “Necessary” lies: for my neighbor’s benefit. Hiding Jews from Nazis.
a) Scripture examples:
(1) Ex. 1:15-21, the Israelite midwives in Egypt.
(2) Joshua 2:4-6, Heb. 11:31, James 2:25, Rahab.
(3) Josh 8:3-8, ambush at Ai, at God’s direction.
(4) Judg. 4:18-21, 5:24-27, Jael and Sisera.
239
(5) 1 Sam. 16:1-5: Samuel misleads Saul as to the reason for his mission.
(6) 1 Sam. 19:12-17: Michal deceives her father’s troops.
(7) 1 Sam. 20:6: David’s counsel to Jonathan.
(8) 1 Sam. 21:13: David feigns madness.
(9) 2 Sam. 5:22-25: another military deceit.
(10) 2 Sam. 15:34, Hushai counseled to lie to Absalom.
(11) 2 Sam. 17:19-20,women deceive Absalom’s men.
(12) 2 Kings 16:14-20, Elisha misleads the Syrian troops.
(13) Jer. 38:24-28, Jeremiah lies to the princes.
(14) Luke 24:28, Jesus acts as if he intends to go further.
b) Augustine, John Murray
(1) Augustine: no lie is of the truth (1 John 2:21, Psm. 5:6), so never lie.
(2) Murray: Deceit is never justified. The midwives were commended, not
for deceiving, but for preserving life. God authorized Samuel to withold
the truth, not to deceive.
c) Hodge: Truth is required only where there is a “virtual promise.”
(1) Difficult to define “virtual promise” or to identify one.
(2) This approach puts the burden of proof on those who would show, in
some situation, that truth is required. In my view, Scripture teaches the
opposite: the burden of proof is on those who would show that lying is
permitted.
d) Douma, Frame
(1) Rahab wouldn’t be praised for her faith in total abstraction from the
methods she used to accomplish the result. How else could the spies
have been “sent out another way” (James 2:25)?
(2) Murray's distinction between deceiving and withholding truth is
legitimate. But when we withhold truth (or even state it) in such a way
as knowingly to create a false impression in the mind of another, that is
surely a form of deceit. To press Murray's distinction in such a case is
merely to play with words.
(a) “Athanasius is nor far away.”
(b) Hans Busscher: “Is Hans Busscher sitting among you?”
(3) Remaining silent is usually not a remedy.
(4) One must simply admit that Scripture admits exceptions to the general
meaning of the commandment.
(a) like the eating of consecrated bread (Lev. 24:9, 1 Sam. 21:3-6,
Matt. 12:5),
(b) disobeying authorities when they require sin.
(c) Capital punishment and war as exceptions to VI.
(5) In such situations, there is such a breakdown in language that it is
difficult, even if you try, to speak truth to your enemy.
(a) Would the Nazis believe you if you said you were hiding Jews in
the basement? Most likely they would suspect a trick.
(b) There are certain specific conventions which are needed in wartime
to communicate truth. E.g., the raising of a white flag: in “wartime
ethics” it is considered dastardly for one to carry a white flag to the
240
enemy and then open fire with a concealed weapon. Yet even those
conventions are not always observed.
(c) Thus the scriptural justification of deceit in wartime is both a divine
norm and a recognition of a de facto breakdown in communication.
(6) We should be conservative with this principle. It does not justify, for
example, lying to a patient about terminal disease.
(7) God sometimes announces actions that he does not ultimately intend to
carry out, in order to motivate his people to prayer and repentance. Cf.
Jesus in Luke 24:28. These are not deceptions, for it is understood in
Scripture that God’s announcements are often conditional (Jer. 18:6-
10).
X. The Tenth Commandment: “Thou shalt not covet.” (Exodus: chamad; Deut.: avah)
Q147: What are the duties required in the tenth commandment?
A147: The duties required in the tenth commandment are, such a full contentment with
our own condition, and such a charitable frame of the whole soul toward our neighbor, as
that all our inward motions and affections touching him, tend unto, and further all that
good which is his.
Q148: What are the sins forbidden in the tenth commandment?
A148: The sins forbidden in the tenth commandment are, discontentment with our own
estate; envying and grieving at the good of our neighbor, together with all inordinate
motions and affections to anything that is his.
A. Inward origin of all sin: Here the Decalogue emphasizes the point often made
elsewhere in Scripture that God is concerned not only with outward acts, but with
inward attitudes as well (“the existential perspective.”) All sin begins with evil desire.
Thus God calls us to guard the thought-life.
B. Traditional distinctions
1. Spontaneous desire (catches you off guard)
2. Nursing that desire (tittilatio)
3. Making a plan to achieve it (involvement of the will)
4. Accomplishing your desire (the deed).
5. Roman Catholic ethics: 1 is not sinful, 2-4 are.
6. Calvin:
a) Other commandments deal with 3-4; this deals with 1-2.
b) 1-2 as sinful as 3-4, in God’s sight. The depth of depravity.
7. Heidelberg Catechism: vs. “least inclination or thought.”
C. Douma:
1. Literal thrust of the commandment is between the disposition (B, 2) and the deed
(B, 4).
2. To covet is to “set your desire on” something, so that you “can’t keep your
hands off it.”
a) Eve in the garden, Gen. 3:6.
b) Israel wanted to go back to Egypt, Ex. 16:3.
c) Achan in Josh. 7:21.
d) The rich man in Nathan’s parable, 2 Sam. 12:1-2.
241
e) Ex. 34:24, Deut. 7:25, Mic. 2:2.
3. So not merely private. Cf. disruption in society caused by conspiracies, even
those that don’t accomplish their goals.
4. NT on covetousness, Luke 12:15, Gal. 5:16-26, 1 John 2:16-17.
a) Col. 3:5, greed is idolatry.
b) Eph. 4:19, 5:3, connected with sexual license.
c) 2 Pet. 2:3, 14, motivates false prophets.
5. Still, there is sin even at level B, 1. Were we free from sin, we would not have the
slightest desire for anything evil.
a) Imaginations, Gen. 6:5, 8:21.
b) Secret sins, Psm. 19:12, 90:8, 139:23-24, Jer. 17:9.
c) Covetous disposition- with no specific object mentioned, Rom. 7:8.
6. JF: That depends on what you mean by desire.
a) Not wrong to merely contemplate something as good or desirable.
b) Wrong to see disobedience to God as a desirable way of achieving it.
D. Related biblical concepts
1. Envy: Gen. 4:7, Mark 4:19, 1 Tim. 6:9-10.
a) A major force in contemporary culture, especially politics. See Schlossberg,
Idols for Destruction on ressentiment, Rushdoony, Politics of Guilt and
Pity, Schroeck, Envy.
b) Ressentiment (Nietzsche): not only wanting something that belongs to
someone else, but hating him, wanting to bring him down.
2. Contentment: Psm. 78:18-19, Luke 3:14, 2 Cor. 9:8, Phil. 4:11, 1 Tim. 6:6-8,
Heb. 13:5.
a) Based on trust in God’s providence.
b) In both poverty and wealth. People of all social conditions violate this
command.
E. Good desires (contra Buddhism)
1. Not wrong to desire food (Matt. 4:2), drink (John 19:28-29), sleep (Luke 8:23),
sex (Gen. 2:22-23, Song of Songs), children (Gen. 30:22-23, 1 Sam. 1:17, Psm.
127:3-5), improved position (Prov. 24:27).
2. The blessings of God include material provision, and we should desire those
(Mark 10:29-31). The covenant promises of land, seed, long life, prosperity.
3. Thirst for God himself, Psm. 42:1-2, 73:25, Phil. 2:23.
4. Think on these things, Phil. 4:8.