SoF >> you still havnt answered my question with a direct yes or no, pertaining to whether or not a widowed woan would be forced to marry her brothe rin law as comanded by OT law.
VII. THE APPLICATION OF GOD'S LAW TO CIVIL JUSTICE
In order to more fully comprehend the issue at hand, it is important to understand the historical divisions of God's law. To aid our understanding, God's law has been divided into three categories: moral, civil, and ceremonial. This division is found in our Westminster Confession, chapter 19. The moral law is summarized in the 10 commandments and are, without question, applicable to the believer today (see WCF 19:2,5,6,7).
The ceremonial law was
designed to be applied only in the shadows of the Old Covenant, since those bloody ceremonies served as sign posts pointing to the One whose blood
would take away sin. The bloody rituals of the Old Covenant have been replaced by bloodless signs of baptism and the Lord's Supper in the New Covenant. The bloody signs of the Old Covenant pointed to a savior to come. The bloodless signs of the New Covenant point back to the savior who has come. It would not be accurate, however, to say that these ceremonial laws are
abolished. They still teach us the principle that God requires a substitutionary blood sacrifice in order to forgive sins. For example, if you are traveling from Monroe to Jackson on I-20, the signs informing you of the number of miles to Jackson are very helpful. Once you arrive in Jackson, however, you no longer need those signs. They have served their purpose. They still apply to those traveling to Jackson and they still serve to remind you of where you were and the distance you have traveled.
The third category of the law is the judicial category and this is where the bulk of the controversy lies. The question is as follows: Are the judicial and penal sanctions in the law of Moses applicable to the Civil Magistrate today? The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 19:4 states:
"To them (Israel) also as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws which expired together with the state of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.
Although this statement from our Confession seems hopelessly confusing, a bit of careful thinking should clear the fog. First, it CANNOT mean that it is God's intent for the judicial law not to be applied at all. This would mean that the State is not under God in any way and implies that the Bible has nothing to say at all about penal justice. This is absolutely unconscionable and I cannot understand how any Christian could advocate such a monstrous position.
Besides, this interpretation of 19:4 is radically inconsistent with the Westminster Standards in other places. In the original version of the WCF, chapter 23, pertaining to the Civil Magistrate, one of the duties outlined by the Westminster Divines for the Civil Magistrate was that he is responsible to see that "
all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed."
Although this provision was deleted in the late 1700's in the American version of the WCF, it is interesting to note that WLC question 108 (citing Deut. 7:5) was left intact. "The duties required in the Second Commandment are...disapproving, detesting, opposing all false worship; and
according to one's place and calling, removing it and all monuments of idolatry."
There is an interesting historical vignette helpful to our discussion on the relationship between the Westminster Confession and Theonomy. According to the book,
Minutes of the Sessions of the Westminster Assembly, p. 211, discussing the debate on Chapter 20,
Of Christian Liberty and the Liberty of Conscience, the wording originally passed by the Assembly was "under the gospel consists, especially in freedom from the guilt and power of sin...from the ceremonial and
judicial law..." The phrase: "freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law was moved to a point later in the section. For the purpose of our discussion, however, the important point is that any mention of being free from the judicial law was excised altogether and never appeared in the WCF. (Thanks to Bill Anderson for this information). This means, that as a result of the debate at the Assembly, the Divines determined that the Christian was
not free from the claims of the judicial law!
There is also a "theonomic flavor" in Larger Catechism, question 191, which asks: "What do we pray for in the second petition?
Part of the answer reads: "...the Church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate: that the ordinances of Christ be purely dispensed... Thus, the Civil Magistrate has a role in protecting the true Church and keeping her pure. Reformed Presbyterians opposed to theonomy, must, in order to maintain integrity, take exceptions to these provisions in our Standards.
NOW PAY REAL CLOSE ATTENTION HERE:
Secondly, if the judicial laws no longer apply in any way, how could any civil magistrate do his duty according to Romans 13? Romans 13:4 teaches us that it is the duty of the Civil Magistrate to be an avenger of God's wrath on the one who practices evil. How is a Civil Magistrate to carry out this duty without an absolute standard of what is good and evil? Without biblical judicial law, it is up to the magistrate himself to determine what is good or evil. The magistrate or legislative body must then arbitrarily determine the punishment for criminal behavior. Thus, King James I of England applied the death penalty for pickpocketing. An abandonment of theonomy leads to arbitrariness, tyranny and uneven punishment. Although Old Testament law has an unjustified reputation of being harsh, a theonomic ethic actually serves to protect citizens against tyrants run amuck. Thirdly, Christians must remember who wrote the judicial laws. They come from the mind of a perfectly good and just God.
God is perfectly fair. An abandonment of theonomy implies that man is wiser than God. It implies that God does not know what He is doing when it comes to civil law. Does any Christian really believe that better and more just laws can come from the minds of sinful, finite, fallen men? How absurd!! Christians who detest theonomy must understand that they are arguing against God.
Theonomists did not write those civil laws, God wrote each one of them. Theonomists believe the laws of God are wiser than men and at least are attempting to believe them and apply them.
The Westminster Divines employed the terms "general equity" because they understood that the Bible was written to apply to all cultures in all times. The case laws provide man with principles of justice that can be applied to all nations in all epochs. For example, Deuteronomy 22:8 requires a parapet to be built around the roof of a home. The theonomic position does NOT maintain that all houses today must have a guard rail constructed on the roof. We look for the general equity of the law. What is God teaching us in this statute? The general equity is a principle of safety. There are many modern applications, such as a requirement to build a fence around a swimming pool, lest a child wander in and drown. If someone owned a house with a flat roof and he entertained guests on the roof, the general equity would be, in that case, a literal application of the law.
To those who deny that the principles of the Old Testament civil code apply today, there is a question that must be answered. With what do you plan to replace God's law? Are the Republicans and Democrats more competent than the Almighty to draft just and righteous laws? Is fallen man better equipped than God to write laws which restrain crime and more efficiently govern people?
--Pastor T. Mark Duncan
Read the above first.
Ok, now what do you think my answer would be?
