Singing Praises to whom?

On the Sunday closest to Independence Day churches all across America hold, what they like to call, “Patriotic Services.” These services were among my very favorite when I was growing up. No more.

God has saved us for His own glory. The church’s sole purpose is to glorify God. What must Jesus think when the people who bear His name — the people for whom He gave His very life — come together on a day and in a place set aside for the worship of God and, instead, sing praises to another?

Lawrence Vance and Jeffery Tucker have both written wonderful pieces that go more in depth on this subject.

It is a subject worth consideration, yes?

There are those who will say I am “unpatriotic” or an “America hater” for expressing such a view. Nothing could be further from the truth. I love America (that does not mean the government — but that’s a topic for another time). But my love for America fades into obscurity when compared with my love for God.

Lawrence Vance concludes his essay this way…

“Instead of worrying about the First Amendment, Christians should be more concerned about the First Commandment. The Lord demands that no gods be put before him – inside or outside of church. God will not give his glory to another (Isaiah 42:8, 48:11).”

Amen.

Corresponding Celebrations

The 4th of July is the day Americans celebrate Independence Day — a commemoration of the signing of the Declaration of Independence which established the 13 colonies as independent and sovereign nations no longer under the rule of England. This bit of history is well known to most Americans. What is not as well known to Americans is another bit of history that is also commemorated in July.

John Calvin’s birthday.

In fact, this year (2009), is Calvin’s 500th birthday and it’s a pretty big deal. There are events scheduled all around the world celebrating the contributions of one of the most influential reformers. His collective works are being made available for people to read and re-read. His best-known work, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, remains one of the very best and accurate explanations of Christian theology ever written. But, you may be wondering, why should Americans care one way or the other about John Calvin’s 500th birthday. Well, I’ll tell you…

But let me first ask you a couple of simple civics questions:

1. Why did America’s founders write the Constitution?
2. Why are there three branches of government?

• Answer 1: To limit the federal government to a very few, specifically numerated tasks.
• Answer 2: Because the founders knew power was something no one person (or group of people) should have all to themselves. Competing power groups would, in theory, keep any one of the groups from becoming too powerful. It’s what we call the checks and balances on government power.

So, what does John Calvin have to do with any of that?

Everything.

John Calvin was instrumental in recapturing the biblical doctrine of Total Depravity — the idea that man is sinful by nature, completely undone and captive to his own evil desires. And, because of this understanding of the nature of man, Calvin developed in Geneva, Switzerland a system of government that limited a man’s ability to rule over other men. He established a government of divided power.

He also articulated the idea that there is a law higher than any man-made law and that all men are subject to the higher law first (see Lord of the Law for more details).

John Calvin’s ideas so shaped the thinking of America’s founders that he is often referred to as the “virtual founder of America.”

Misunderstandings about Calvin’s theology have prompted many Christians to vilify him. But whatever your opinion of John Calvin, Americans need to recognize the role he played in the foundation of the United States. Oh, I’m not saying we owe John Calvin anything (and neither would he). He would insist — and I agree — that the credit for the foundation of America goes to God alone. But John Calvin was a tool in God’s hand used for that purpose.

Side Note:

Many churches celebrate Independence Day with “patriotic” hymns. One of the most popular is “The Battle Hymn of the Republic.” Unfortunately most Christians do not know the origin of that hymn, nor the theology of it’s author. It’s intent was not to glorify God in any way. The Jesus mentioned in that song is not the Jesus of the Bible. My prayer is that many would take the time to learn about that song and then abandon it altogether as something completely inappropriate to be sung by God’s people.

Lord of the Law: Part V

Closing Arguments

(Continued from Part IV)

So we can see that the law is not something created by man nor does he define it. It preexists man. It is a natural part of God’s creation and comes from God’s heart. It is only to be discovered by man and accurately applied. And, just like every other part of God’s creation, there is an appointed hierarchy of authority with regard to the law’s application. Governments are only authorized to apply the law as long as they do so under the authority of the Supreme Lawgiver. The moment any government begins to arbitrarily apply laws apart from that authority it is illegitimate.

I know, I know. This opens up some questions:

1. What about people who don’t believe the Bible?
2. So, is breaking (insert questionable law here) a sin or not?

Let’s deal with these briefly, one at a time…

Question 1: What about people who don’t believe in the Bible?

Answer: Good question. The 10 Commandments (considered to be the heart of the law) basically deals with two relationships: 1) Man’s relationship with God and 2) man’s relationship with men. Jesus summarized this for us and condensed it into two, basic commandments…

“And he said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.’” — Matthew 22: 37-40

It is true that God will hold everyone accountable to all of the law. Anyone who worships idols, who has other gods before Him, who does not love God will have to account to God for it. But the laws of men should not outlaw such behavior because not all men are a part of the covenant people of God. Paul explained this to the Corinthians when he pointed out that it was not their job to judge the world but to judge only one another:

“For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside.” — 1 Corinthians 5:12-13

For the second part of the commandments, the part that deals with man’s relationship with men, God has authorized government to judge. These are things that transgress the God-given rights of others. You may not murder, or steal, or commit adultery. These are things that harm other people — that violate their rights — and we may not do them. These are the things governments are authorized to legislate against. And what’s more — as I pointed out in Lord of the Law: Part II, Natural Law — these are things written on the hearts of men and easily understood, even apart from any knowledge of the Bible. They also are almost universally accepted by people of all faiths — or no faith at all.

Question 2: So, is breaking (insert questionable law here) a sin or not?

Answer: It depends.

Governments have long been in the habit of legislating far beyond their authority. The most egregious examples (from a Christian perspective) are the governments throughout history that have outlawed Christianity. Rome mandated everyone recognize Caesar as a god. Does the Bible intend for Christians to “submit” to a government that mandates such a thing?

Of course not.

But what about examples not quite as cut-and-dried?

As a general rule, if a law exists to prevent you from encroaching on the rights of others it is legitimate. If, however, an existing law restricts your liberty for no other reason than some government bureaucrat thinks they know better than you how to run your life it is illegitimate.

A law against firing a loaded gun into a crowd is legitimate because firing a loaded gun into a crowd encroaches on the rights of the people in the crowd.

A law against possessing a loaded gun in your home is illegitimate because having such a gun does not violate anyone else’s rights. Furthermore, there is a legitimate purpose for having a loaded gun in one’s home — self defense. You do not have to ask the government’s permission to defend yourself, your family or your property against those who mean you harm.

To break an illegitimate law is no sin. Allow Scripture to be your guide in determining the difference.

But this does not mean governments will not enact and enforce illegitimate laws. They will and they do. They always have. And, to support my argument, I submit the following evidence:

Exhibit A: The state bans prayer at Christian institutions.

Exhibit B: The state tries to dictate the use of Church funds.

Exhibit C: Homeschoolers are ordered into public schools despite superior academic performance and against the wishes of their mother.

Exhibit D: A mother is ticketed for reviving her son.

Exhibit E: Parenting is being treated as a “governmental privilege.”

In all of these cases the government already has or is seeking to overstep it’s authority. No one has a moral or biblical obligation to obey such dictates from an illegitimate government. However, that being said, it must also be noted that resistance to illegitimate government is not to be taken lightly. The state does not like to be told where it has no authority and often deals harshly with those who dare make such statements.

Remember, even though a government may not have the legitimate authority to enact some laws, it often has the power to enforce them. You may not willingly consent to illegitimate laws, but you may want to comply because of the state’s threat of force.

Much like the example of a mugger who points a gun at you and demands your wallet. You don’t consent to give him your wallet; neither does he have the legitimate authority to take it. Nevertheless, you comply with his demand because he has the power to exercise force against you if you do not.

There are a host of illegitimate laws in our world. When do you comply and when do you not? That’s a question for you to decide.

In the first century Christians refused to comply with Rome’s demand to worship Caesar as a god because Rome had no legitimate authority to make such a demand. But many of those Christians died because Rome had the power to take their lives if they did not.

Where do you draw the line?

Where do you take your stand?

What price are you willing to pay?

Lord of the Law: Part IV

Higher Law

(Continued from Part III)

Perhaps the biggest bit of irony in the whole “Divine Right of Kings” vs. “Natural Law” struggle is the use of Scripture to support the idea that kings have absolute authority. During the middle ages, when the idea of the Divine Right of Kings was most widely accepted, kings appealed to Scripture as a support for their position. But, what is even more ironic, is that while the Divine Right of Kings was rejected in the foundation of many western societies during the 18th century (most notably the United States), it is being re-embraced by the very societies that have most benefitted from it’s rejection.

Take the United States: The founders so abhorred the idea of any one man having too much power that they did everything they could to ensure the power of government was divided into as many separate pieces as possible. Far from being advocates of the Divine Right of Kings, these men clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence that, “…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” Rather than seeing leaders as receiving absolute authority from God, the founders recognized that government leaders received their authority to govern from the consent of those they governed. And, government was intended for a specifically stated purpose — to secure the rights endowed to all men, by their Creator.

Sadly, many Americans have forgotten these principles — if they ever knew them at all. And, to add fuel to the fire, many Christians make an appeal to Scripture similar to that of the kings during of the middle ages. They claim the Bible teaches that we must submit to whatever government is over us because God has put it in place. There are two Scriptures commonly used (then and now) to support this argument. Let’s take a look at them:

The first is Matthew 22:15-21…

“Then the Pharisees went and plotted how to entangle him in his words. And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone’s opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances. Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the coin for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius. And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said, “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” — Matthew 22:15-21

And the second is Romans 13:1-7…

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.” — Romans 13:1-7

Well, at first glace the advocates of a Divine Right of Kings theory of government seem to have a point. But, if it is true that we must submit to any government, doesn’t it beg the question — what if a government instructs us to do something God has clearly forbidden? The answer will usually be something like this: “In the event a government orders you to do something expressly forbidden in Scripture then you are to obey God and resist the government.” And the text used to support that answer is…

Acts 5:27-29…

“And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them, saying, “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.” — Acts 5:27-29

Proper biblical interpretation requires many things. Two of the primary things are proper context and careful reading. In the passage in Acts the apostles have already been told by the Sanhedrin that they can’t preach in the name of Jesus. They are even put in prison for it. During the night an angel of the Lord freed them and they went back to preaching. That’s when they are brought again before the chief priests in verse 27. They inform the priests that they will obey God rather than men. The priests didn’t like that. They had the apostles beaten and told them again not to preach in Jesus name.

And what did the apostles do?

Continued preaching in Jesus name, of course. You see the chief priests did not have the authority to order the apostles to cease. But they had the power to exact a painful price from them if they didn’t. This difference between power and authority is key. We’ll look at it a bit more later.

Now, those who use this verse to say we have the obligation to disobey a government when that government is in direct conflict with the commands of God are absolutely right in their interpretation. But, there is more here.

When the apostles refuse to obey the chief priests they are demonstrating that when the laws of men and the laws of God come into conflict one is clearly superior to the other. God’s law is superior. It is higher. Man’s law holds no authority when it conflicts with God’s higher law.

Besides, man’s law often contains unlawful exemptions. Kings, presidents, and legislatures often enact laws that apply to everyone but themselves. But God’s law applies to everyone — equally. Kings and presidents are just as subject to God’s higher law as the lowest peasant they revile as inferior.

But what about the other passages? The ones that command us to submit to the authorities?

Good questions. Let’s look first at the passage in Matthew. It is true that Jesus said to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. But, just as in the Acts passage, there is more here than immediately meets the eye. In the first century Caesar was considered by many to be nearly divine. He insisted on absolute loyalty from everyone. Of course, in the Jewish world, there was great resentment toward Caesar, and this was the purpose of their tax question to Jesus. If Jesus says, “pay your taxes to Caesar,” he will alienate many of his Jewish followers who resent Rome. If he says, “Don’t pay your taxes,” he will likely be arrested by the Roman officials as an insurgent. They think they’ve trapped Jesus. But, when Jesus answers “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars,” he shows no disrespect for Caesar yet clearly implies there are things that do not belong to Caesar.

Jesus makes a clear distinction between God and the state. By telling them to give Caesar the things due Caesar and God the things due God he is clearly pointing out that the two are not the same thing. Furthermore, it cannot be stated strongly enough: Not everything Caesar claims belongs to him actually belongs to him.

Don’t forget, the time is coming, soon after Jesus ascends to heaven, when the Caesars will demand everyone within the Roman Empire worship them as gods. God knew this would happen. Jesus would not tell anyone to worship Caesar as god simply because Caesar said to. There is a higher law.

By drawing this contrast Jesus is telling them to give Caesar anything that is legitimately his — but he is also clearly teaching that those things are strictly limited.

So, how do we know what is and is not legitimately Caesar’s? Everyone lives under the authority of a government somewhere. How do we determine what our government legitimately has a right to ask of us? The answer is found in the passage in Romans 13 — and, once again, careful attention is necessary to grasp the full meaning (You may want to scroll back up and re-read Romans 13: 1-7, just to refresh).

Paul does plainly state every person should be subject to the governing authorities. But it is on the word “authorities” where our attention should focus. From this passage we can see God has authorized governments. We also can see specifically why God authorized governments.

See where Paul says, “…rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad.”?

That means God instituted governments for the expressed purpose of dealing with evil. Governments are God’s temporary instrument of justice.

Paul continues, “Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain.”

So, governments have a specific purpose — to prevent and punish evildoers. But guess what…

Governments do not determine what is good and evil. From where does that determination come?

God.

God, and God alone, is the author of what is good and evil. Any government that tries to enforce laws contrary to the laws God has written on the hearts of men (which are consistent with Scripture) or exercise power outside of the specifically God-authorized purpose of government is illegitimate.

Consider for a moment the authority a husband has over his wife — a father over his children. Does this grant the husband and father the right to beat his family? Of course not. Any man who does that has stepped outside of the God-ordained role of father and husband. He has no authority to do such a thing.

Governments are no different. They are authorized for specific purposes and have no authority to act outside of those purposes. Now, governments do have the power to do things not authorized by God. This is the difference between power and authority I mentioned earlier. Both power and authority may be used to obtain compliance from others. But only one of them is legitimate.

A thief who points a gun at me and demands my money has the power to get me to comply with his demand. But he has no authority to take my money and no legitimate claim on it.

Just because a government has the power to take things does not mean it has the legitimate authority to do so.

Yes, Scripture says, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,” but not everything Caesar claims are his, are his. He only has the authority to do that which God has ordained. If he taxes in order to make himself rich, he has no right to that money. It is not an ordained purpose. Does Caesar determine for himself the legitimate purposes for taxation? No. God has already done that. Any government is illegitimate that steps outside the authority granted it by God. Man-made law comes with a built-in limitation. It is all subject to the authority of God. It has a specific purpose and when it goes beyond that purpose it is in violation of God’s higher law and therefore null and void.

Christians, of all people, should understand this principle. But even non-Christians have understood this throughout the years because it is a principle God has written on the hearts of men.

Socrates, in a debate with a friend, once asked, “What is law?”

The friend replied, “Law is what is legislated.”

Socrates said, “Just as sight isn’t what we see, but rather that by which we see, so likewise law is not what is legislated but that by which we legislate.”

The friend objected and said, “Law is the judgment of the state.”

To which Socrates replied, “Law is the correct judgment of the state.”

You see, something doesn’t become law because it is legislated; something should be legislated because it is law. And that which determines the legitimacy of law is much, much higher than the opinion of man.

This opens up a whole can of worms, I realize. Questions abound about specific laws and whether or not they are legitimate.

Is speeding a sin or not?

Should I only pay taxes to support government programs I agree with?

Good questions. We will deal with a series of actual examples and “What ifs” in Part V.

Lord of the Law: Part III

Common Law

(Continued from Part II)

Throughout history many philosophers have subscribed to the concept of Natural Law. They thought about it, considered it’s implications, and articulated it’s meaning. Some of the more noteworthy philosophers of this persuasion are Socrates, John Locke, and Thomas Jefferson.

For these men, and many others like them, law was a science. It pre-existed in nature every bit as much as biology, physics, and chemistry. They realized man could no more dictate moral absolutes and the content of legitimate laws than he could dictate scientific principles.

Example: The rate at which an object falls is 32 feet per second per second. This is scientific fact. Man cannot declare an object fall any faster or slower — because he has no authority over gravity. None. Science is not ours to define it is ours to discover.

So is the law.

It was the attempt to discover Natural Law that lead to the development of “Common Law.” Common Law is a form of law that develops over time. Where Natural Law was understood to be in force, judges would seek to “discover” the appropriate application of that law when deciding a conflict. They did not endeavor to establish a law from nothing, they sought to find out how nature’s laws applied to their particular situation. Then, in subsequent cases, judges would look back on previous decisions to learn from their predecessors. This is a system of law based on precedent. It’s called case law and it originated from people who accepted the principle of Natural Law.

Of course, not everyone accepts the principle of Natural Law. Quite the contrary is true. There have always been those who advocated law by decree. Strangely enough, the people who advocated such a system were usually the very people in positions to issue decrees. They were the kings, queens, dukes, duchesses and emperors of their day. They wanted to have their way — and the best way to do that was to have their will declared law.

In the days of the Roman Empire emperors accomplished this by claiming to be divine. They were worshipped as gods and so their word was considered an absolute authority. Later, when kings were regarded as less than divine they still managed to hold claim to absolute authority through a doctrine they called the “Divine Right of Kings.”

While they might consent to being regarded as less than divine, they did claim that their position as a monarch was the will of God. Their right to rule came directly from the will of God and so anyone who defied the king’s will was considered a heretic for defying the very will of God.

And so, through the ages, a conflict has raged — between those who believe the law is whatever they say it is and those who believe the law is a component of creation and is to be discovered and equally applied to all. And, as is the case with most historical conflicts, you have periods of time where one side has held the upper hand and periods of time when the other side has held the upper hand. In this case, Natural Law took a beating for quite some time. Beginning with the Roman Empire and continuing through most of the Middle Ages the Divine Right of Kings held sway. Then, in 1215, things began to change.

In 1215 the Magna Carta was drafted. The Magna Carta, which is Latin for “Great Charter,” is a document drafted by many of the Barons and Lords of England who lived under the rule of King John. King John was one of those people who subscribed to the Divine Right of Kings and acted accordingly. By 1215 the people of England were fed up. In the Magna Carta they declared that they had certain rights apart from the king’s decrees and that even the will of King John was subject to a higher law.

This was the start of a comeback for Natural Law and the beginning of the establishment of English Common Law. The Magna Carta became more and more influential through the years. It influenced John Lock who, in turn, influenced Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson, you may recall, is the guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence, a document that is, perhaps, the definitive declaration of Natural Law.

And, of course, the conflict rages on.

So, what’s a Christian to make of all this?

Well, this is where things can get dicey. Some Christians fall solidly into one camp while some fall solidly into the other. I tend to think the Bible makes a good case for the concept of Natural Law. But others say things like…

“Doesn’t Romans chapter 13 mean that Christians must submit to whoever is in power?”

… and…

“When Jesus said, ‘Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s’ didn’t he mean we must do what Caesar says?”

Good questions. We’ll tackle those in Lord of the Law: Part IV, Higher Law.

Lord of the Law: Part II

Natural Law

(Continued from Part I)

Critics of the Bible often point to ancient history as a method of discrediting the authenticity of the Bible. Specifically they claim ancient history refutes the notion that the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God. Whereas Christians and Jews might point to the Mosaic Law as the prime example of God’s standards, critics claim the Mosaic Law can’t possibly be the revealed Word of God because the very standards expressed in the Bible are expressed in other ancient writings that predate the Bible. So, unless God is a plagiarist, the Bible simply cannot be true in the fashion it claims.

They tend to use two examples to defend their position:

1. The Code of Hammurabi
2. Confucius

Number 1: The Code of Hammurabi is an ancient code of law that was enacted by the sixth king of Babylon, Hammurabi, in the year 1760 B.C. One example of the code is still in existence today. It is inscribed on a seven-feet-tall slab of stone called a stele. In ancient Babylon these steles were placed throughout the kingdom so that everyone could read and know the law.

One of the first three laws says, “If any one brings an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if a capital offense is charged, be put to death.”

Sounds a lot like a prohibition against bearing false witness, doesn’t it?

You know what? There are other laws in the Code of Hammurabi that sound an awful lot like the Mosaic Law — particularly the 10 Commandments (which is found in the book of Exodus). And the challenge issued to those who believe in the authenticity of Scripture is this: Whether you subscribe to an early date for the Exodus (1446 B.C.) or a late date (1260 B.C.), the Code of Hammurabi still predates the writing of the 10 Commandments by hundreds of years.

Number 2: Confucius was a Chinese philosopher whose teachings greatly influenced the far eastern world. He is famous for a number of quotations. One of the most famous is, “Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself.”

Okay, now that sounds a lot like the Golden Rule spoken by Jesus in Matthew chapter 7.

“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” — Matthew 7:12

Critics of Scripture are quick to point out that Confucius uttered his words almost 500 years before Jesus was even born.

So, naturally, these two examples are irrefutable proof that the Bible is not the inspired Word of God and is, instead, the product of a bunch of lazy writers who didn’t have the creative energy to come up with any original material, right?

Well, of course not. So, where is the resolution? It is found in a biblical concept that often doesn’t receive the attention it is due — “common grace.”

When Adam and Eve sinned they became immediately worthy of eternal punishment — death and damnation. In the same way, every single person who ever lived or will live was and is deserving of God’s wrath. God would be completely justified in the destruction of us all. But He doesn’t do that, does he?

Instead, God provided a means of salvation through the work of Christ. And, for the sake of those who will eventually come to a saving faith in Christ, God postpones His ultimate judgment. In the meantime, everyone — even the non-elect — get to experience a measure of God’s blessings and grace through “common grace.” Instead of being immediately cast into hell, many people who will reject Christ until their dying day enjoy long lives full of all sorts of blessings. One such blessing God grants to everyone is an innate sense of right and wrong, which prevents man from falling completely prey to his sinful nature and descending into abject depravity. He gives man a basic understanding of the law.

“For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.” — Romans 2:12-16

What this means is, even though men may be ignorant of the written Law of God as expressed in the Bible, they still have the principles of that Law written on their hearts. They have a conscience that tells them when something is wrong. Just as Cain knew he had done something wrong when he murdered his brother, Abel, men have always had a sense of right and wrong because God has equipped them with it. This is why Hammurabi had the ability to establish many good laws apart from ever having read Scripture. This is why Confucius “knew” the Golden Rule before Jesus spoke it audibly. These laws are a natural part of God’s creation.

That does not mean men have the ability to follow their conscience in order to earn God’s favor. Look at the last part of that passage above. God will judge men by Christ Jesus. Salvation hinges on one thing only: Are you in Christ Jesus or not?

But what this does mean is that God has given rise to a thing we know as “natural law” or the “law of nature.” Natural law is a generally accepted theory of law that posits the existence of a law, which is set by nature and, therefore, has validity everywhere. It is the law that has general acceptance the world over. In practically every society and every culture you will find prohibitions against murder, theft, etc. There are exceptions — but not many.

Richard Maybury expresses this law in its most concise form in his book, “Whatever Happened to Justice?” He reduces natural law to two, basic, principles:

1. Do all you have agreed to do
2. Do not encroach on other persons or their property

Similarly Jesus condensed all of the law — both God’s law and Natural law — into two, basic, principles:

“And he said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.’” — Matthew 22: 37-40

This natural law has had a profound impact on the world — most notably in the foundation of the United States. In the text of America’s foundational document, the Declaration of Independence, there is an explicit acceptance of natural law.

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

There has always raged a debate as to whether or not America’s founding fathers were Christians or deists or atheists or something else. But what is not debatable is their understanding of natural law. It was upon an appeal to natural law that the founders justified their rebellion against England because they regarded natural law as a higher authority than the laws of men (more on that later).

Even beyond the shores of the United States the blessings of natural law are evident. It has been at the heart of many of the world’s most civilized societies. Go figure, it comes right from the heart of God, Himself, and is a blessing, indeed.

(To be continued in Part III)

Lord of the Law: Part I

God’s Law

Whenever “law” is discussed in a Christian or religious context the mind is immediately drawn to the Mosaic Law, the Ten Commandments, and the Old Testament — and rightfully so. For it is in the Law, as expressed in the Bible, where we find the heart of God. It is there we see an expression of what it means to be holy.

But it is important to understand God’s Law transcends even the Old Testament Mosaic Law. Since God is creator of all things, and sovereign over them, His law can be found in “Natural Law” as well. It can be found in what is sometimes referred to as “Common Law.” His fingerprints are all over every law that is just, and is designed to do only that which God has authorized it to do. We will discuss such laws further a little later. For now let’s focus on the Mosaic Law.

So, what is the purpose of the Law as expressed in the Bible? Is it a guide for proper living?

Yes.

Is it the standard by which we are measured?

Yes — with a caveat.

God gave it to us with the full knowledge that we can’t keep it.

You may be asking, “Do you mean to say that God gave us rules He already knew we could not keep?”

Yep.

“And then holds us accountable for not keeping them?”

Yep.

I know, I know — that just doesn’t seem fair.  But do you want to be the one who calls God out on this? Remember, Job questioned God once about the “fairness” of his circumstances — and God responded with a Holy verbal smack down that took two entire chapters (Job chapters 38 and 39) to complete. Job learned his place. We should, too. God is not accountable to us — we are accountable to Him.

Besides, it isn’t as though humanity was an innocent bystander in history, doing a pretty descent job of pleasing God, when all of a sudden — BOOM — God dropped the hammer of the Law on us to trip us up. Oh no. We’d screwed things up long before God gave us the Law.

Think about it. Cain murdered Abel in Genesis chapter 4. You don’t think that it was okay with God that Cain killed his brother simply because the Law had not yet been given, do you? I mean, the Law doesn’t show up until Exodus chapter 20. There’s a HUGE chunk of time wedged between Cain’s crime and the introduction of the Law. Did that mean Cain was off the hook? Of course not.

It was murder. And what’s more, Cain knew it. When God asked Cain where his brother was Cain deflects the question, “I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?” Were he completely ignorant of the evil he had done he would have answered with something like, “Sure, he’s buried over there. Why do you ask?”

But he doesn’t. He lies in an attempt to escape the consequences of his action. An action he already knew was wrong — even without the Law. And God held him accountable for the crime. He passes judgment on Cain and sentences him…

“And now, you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it shall no longer yield to you its strength. You shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth.” — Genesis 4:11-12

So, in Genesis chapter 4 we have a crime, a judgment, and a sentence — so why in the world did God give us the Law? If he already knew we couldn’t keep it; if we were already guilty before Him; if we already had some notion about right and wrong; why give us the Law? What is its purpose?

Answer: To show us the standard by which we are measured and to show us our need for grace. Without the Law we have a tendency to measure ourselves against ourselves, which is a method that makes us appear to be better than we actually are — at least in our own eyes.

Without the Law we’d continually measure ourselves against the worst elements of humanity. When confronted with the fact we’ve stolen something our reaction would be, “Well hey, at least I didn’t murder someone, like ol’ Cain did over there.”

It’s in invalid defense and an inaccurate comparison. WE are not the standard. God is the standard.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” — Matthew 5:43-48

Jesus specifically tells us that doing what others do is no gauge of morality or righteousness. Moreover, He provides the proper standard by which we are to measure ourselves — God.

Okay, so we have the appropriate standard. We are to compare ourselves to God. How hard could it be, right?

Enter the Law.

Look at the Law. There is no way we can keep the whole thing. And Jesus even makes it harder because he points out that the right motives for keeping the Law are essential if you are to keep the Law. Do it out of obligation instead of love for the Father and you have transgressed. You’ve failed.

We are entirely incapable of keeping the Law. We need grace. The Law shows us just how dire is our need for grace. In Romans chapter 7 Paul describes how it is the Law that shows our sin for what it truly is. It shows us our need for a mediator, someone to intervene on our behalf.

We need a savior. We need Christ.

This is why God gave us the Law — to show us our complete inability to achieve His standard and our subsequent need for Jesus.

Now, it has been pointed out that not everyone was the recipient of God’s written Law. At first it was for the Jewish people only. Later, through the work of Christ, it was made available to Gentiles. But some may still ask, “How, then, is it that we find similar laws in cultures and countries where the Mosaic Law was never known? How did those people come to establish standards very near what God established in the Torah and yet they have no knowledge of the Torah?”

Good question.

We’ll take a look at that in Lord of the Law: Part II, Natural Law.

Thideology Research Team Report

JERUSALEM — The Thideology Research Team has announced that on Feb. 22, 2009 Israeli archaeologists discovered a large building dating to the time of the First and Second Temples associated with Hezekiah, the King of Judah. A complete account of the discovery is available on worldnetdaily.com (the news agency that actually reported the story).

According to Thideology Research Team officials, who knew nothing of the discovery until they read about it in the aforementioned news story from worldnetdaily, the excavation was conducted by the Israeli government’s Antiquities Authority in the southern Jerusalem village of Umm Tuba.

“The archaeologists unearthed the remains of an ancient building consisting of several rooms arranged around a courtyard,” said a Thideology Research Team spokesman. “They also found pottery and artifacts from the First and Second Temple periods.”

In addition, there were found official government seals bearing the names of Ahimelekh ben Amadyahu and Yehokhil ben Shahar, two high-ranking officials in Hezekiah’s government.

“As always, the Thideology Research Team is available to not go to help in the excavation,” the Team spokesman said. “In fact, we are already blocking off several weeks on our schedule to not go to Jerusalem in the event we are not contacted by the Israeli Antiquities Authority. We expect to not get that call any day, now.”

The wrong filter

Quick question: What is the most overused question in Bible study settings? Any idea?

When a Sunday School teacher or Bible study leader has read a passage of Scripture they often look up from the text and ask this question…

“What does that mean to you?”

Note: I don’t have any “hard statistical evidence” to support the claim that this is the “most overused” question in Bible study settings? But it is used a lot.

This question is typically followed with a “discussion time” where each person will answer the question with the phrase, “To me this means (insert your own meaning here).”

Have you ever experienced this kind of class? Many of us have — and it’s a horrible way to study the Bible. That sort of reasoning presupposes a lot of things that are flat-out wrong. It can lead to conclusions that are absolutely contrary to Scripture. Let me give you some examples.

Many people who claim to be evangelical Christians actively campaign for the legitimacy of homosexuality. One group, Soulforce, has been particularly active. Their website is loaded with resources for “Christians” who want to promote homosexuality. In one place you may order an award-winning documentary entitled, “For the Bible Tells Me So.” According to Soulforce this film, “brilliantly reconciles homosexuality and Biblical scripture, and in the process reveals that Church-sanctioned anti-gay bias is based almost solely upon a significant (and often malicious) misinterpretation of the Bible.”

Oprah Winfrey once had a couple of “religious leaders” on her show who proclaimed being gay is a gift from God. Oprah loved it. The audience loved it. No consideration to what Scripture said.

Note: This article is NOT about homosexuality. Homosexuality is merely the example I used to illustrate a point. For the purpose of this article we will assume the Bible clearly defines homosexuality as sinful (which it does). The purpose of this article is to answer the following question…

How do people who claim to be Christians end up with such a skewed view of Scripture? The Bible clearly condemns homosexuality as sinful and yet there are people — who profess to follow Christ — defending something God clearly abhors. Some go so far as to characterize it as a “blessing from God.”

How does this happen?

It happens as a result of that overused question I mentioned earlier and the presuppositions attached to it. It happens as a result of the Oprah-ization of American Christianity. It happens because we use the wrong filter.

Oprah, and many like her, have built huge careers helping people “get in touch with their feelings.” With any given topic we are all asked…

• “How does this make you feel?”
• “What does your heart tell you?”
• “What does this mean to you?”

Let me be perfectly clear. Where God’s standard of right and wrong — righteousness and sin — are concerned our feelings mean precisely squat.

During the time of the Judges Israel was under a curse. The culmination of that curse is summarized in Judges 17:6, “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.”

Sounds great, right? Except that when God leaves us to our own devices, when he turns us loose to be subject to our own judgment it is a terrible thing.

Proverbs 16:25 says, “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.”

You see, we are fallen creatures. All of us have sinful natures which distort our view of what is righteous. Things that seem right to us will lead us to death. And this is the fatal flaw with the question, “What does this mean to you?” That question presupposes that we have the ability to judge for ourselves what any given passage of Scripture means on the basis of our feelings. Scripture does not mean one thing for one person and something completely different for another. It means what it means. Our job is to determine the right meaning. And our feelings should play no part in finding that meaning.

Isaiah 55:8-9 says, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord.  For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

The problem with our modern approach to “Bible study” is we filter the Bible through our feelings to determine its meaning — when what we ought to be doing is filtering our feelings through the Bible to determine their meaning.

“Christians without Borders”

I have written article after article on this website outlining what I believe is the idolatrous nature of much of “American Christianity.” Now, Dr. David Alan Black, a professor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, has written one, brief article that summarizes the topic very well.

Note: The mark of a good writer is not how many words he can use to express himself, but how few. Dr. Black, who prefers to be called “Brother Dave,” is a very good writer, indeed. His latest article, entitled “Christians without Borders” is concise, to-the-point, and well worth your time.

Very well said, Brother Dave.