Join with me in prayer. Lord God, we thank you for your word, the direction that it gives, the light that it grants to our minds and hearts. We pray that you would help us to understand your word, that it would give light to us, that we might know your ways and your will. And we pray that you would also give us an appreciation for the forgiveness that we have in Jesus Christ, that we might live before you and serve you with joy all our days. We pray this in Jesus' name. Amen. Today we come to the law once again, working our way through the law of God as a topic of study. And today, as you might note from the handout, we come to the judicial laws of the Old Testament. Threefold division of the law in our confession of faith kind of categorizes the law, biblical law, in the categories of moral law, which is kind of the basic law, the main law that we find in Scripture. Then there is also certain ceremonial laws that were given to Israel in the Old Testament. We looked at that last week, and that is Those have been abrogated, although they're very instructive still, that were typifying the work of Christ and what He would accomplish and institute in the New Covenant. And there's other things that were instituted in the New Testament, like the Lord's Supper and baptism and New Covenant ceremonies, we might say. But then there are also the judicial laws of the Old Testament that were also given to Israel. And today we're going to look at those laws and how we ought to understand them and to what extent are they still in effect today. But before I do that, I want to give a little context. When the judicial laws were given, one collection, for example, is in Exodus 21 through 23. It was in a particular context, and in chapter 18 of Exodus, you have the appointing of judges. At first, it was just Moses who would settle their disputes. They would all go to Moses, and he was the prophet, and he would declare God's will and make judgments. But now, as they would have judges throughout Israel that would help him bear that task, they needed laws to help guide them in the administering of that judgment because they were not all prophets like Moses was. And that's part of the context, at least, of the giving of the law at Mount Sinai. Certainly, it was also a renewal of the covenant with Israel as well. And so I'm going to read from the recounting of this in Deuteronomy chapter one verses 9 through 18. This is Moses later talking about what had happened at that time. At that time, I said to you, I'm not able to bear you by myself. The Lord your God has multiplied you, and behold, you are today as numerous as the stars of heaven. May the Lord, the God of your fathers, make you a thousand times as many as you are and bless you as he has promised you. How can I bear by myself the weight and burden of you and your strife? Choose for your tribes wise, understanding, and experienced men, and I will appoint them as your heads. And you answered me, the thing that you have spoken is good for us to do. So I took the heads of your tribes, wise and experienced men, and set them as heads over you, commanders of thousands, commanders of hundreds, commanders of fifties, commanders of tens, and officers throughout your tribes. And I charged your judges at that time, hear the cases between your brothers and judge righteously between a man and his brother or the alien who is with him. You shall not be partial in judgment. You shall hear the small and the great alike. You shall not be intimidated by anyone for the judgment is God's. In the case that is too hard for you, you shall bring to me and I will hear it. And I commanded you at that time all the things that you should do. This is the word of the Lord. And so in that context, not only the Ten Commandments were given, but then also sundry judicial laws, various laws that would cover cases that could be brought before these judges and instruct them how they were to handle them. Now, in our confession of faith in chapter 19, paragraph four, it has a sentence, kind of short paragraph here. It says, to them 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. Now notice it's distinguishing that the ceremonial laws were given to Israel as a church under age. The judicial laws were given to Israel as a body politic. Israel was not only God's covenant people, they were also a nation and they needed laws as a body politic to administer justice. And these laws were given to them especially for that reason. and it says that the the judicial laws given to israel have expired uh... but that they continue to oblige nations to conform to them as far as the general equity as their general equity requires now that's not a phrase that we use a lot today and i might need a little unpacking and so i want to spent a little time on that. But the reason given for the expiration of these judicial laws is not that Christ fulfilled them like he did the ceremonial law. The reason does have something to do with the changes that came with Christ, but it's primarily because the ancient state of Israel no longer exists. The original context that they were given to no longer exists. And thus to apply them today, we must discern what was grounded in the unique position of ancient Israel and what was grounded in the moral law, which is unchanging in every place and time. That's the main distinction that's being brought in by general equity. The equity that is general, that is common to all nations. Now, there was a... There was a German reformed theologian around 1600 who wrote an influential writing on the judicial law, and his work was cited favorably by the men at the Westminster Assembly. His name was Johannes Piskator. And this is how he stated his thesis, his position on the judicial laws. He said, the magistrate is obliged to those judicial laws which teach concerning matters which are immutable and universally applicable to all nations, but not to those which teach concerning matters which are mutable and peculiar to the Jewish or Israelite nations for the times when those governments remained in existence. So you get a sense of the distinction being made here. There's some laws regarding matters that don't change, that are universal. There's also laws that regarded matters that were particular to Israel and would change. And those do not obligate a Christian magistrate to apply them in the way that the others do. Now, one of the members of the Westminster Assembly who wrote the, helped, you know, come up with this confession of faith, his name was Samuel Bolton, and he published The True Bounds of Christian Freedom during the Assembly. And this is how he described the judicial law. As for the judicial law, which was an appendix to the second table, it was an ordinance containing precepts concerning the government of the people in things civil. And it served three purposes. It gave the people a rule of common and public equity, it distinguished them from other peoples, and it gave them a type of the government of Christ. That part of the judicial law which was typical of Christ's government has ceased, but that part which is of common and general equity remains still in force. It is a common maxim. Those judgments which are common and natural are moral and perpetual. And so you get a little sense of how he's using the term general equity in that quote. Not the parts that was typical, again using that word typical as types and shadows of Christ's government and his kingdom, but rather that part which is based on the moral law and applying it. Now this view is brought over to the colonies. And in the colonies, they had more ability to actually reform the laws in accordance with what they saw in the Bible. And so the New Haven colony, which later became part of Connecticut, affirmed in the same decade, 1642, that the judicial law of Moses given sorry, the judicial law of God given by Moses and expounded in other parts of scripture, so far as it is a hedge and offense to the moral law and neither ceremonial nor typical nor had any reference to Canaan, hath an everlasting equity in it and should be the rule of their proceedings. Again, same distinction here. There's part that is based on their unique situation in Canaan or is typical of Christ's government. That part is not binding today. But there's another part that is an offense to the moral law, a hedge that has everlasting equity in it. And so that should be the rule of their proceedings, that colony in New Haven. And so like any nation, Israel needed laws to guide its role in administering justice. And so God gave it these laws that as a people, they might be a model of justice and righteousness. In Deuteronomy 4, God says, if you do these laws that I give you, it will be your wisdom in the sight of the peoples. And they'll say, what nation has laws so just as this nation? Notice he doesn't say the nations will be like, what nation has laws so harsh and burdensome as this people? No, if they were observed, and that's the key, if they were observed, they would have realized what nation has laws so just as this nation, and what nation has a God so close to them that they can call upon him. And so in this respect, their God-given laws were a model. As it pertains to matters which are immutable, universally applicable to all nations, and rests upon general equity, it remains in force. Now, Piscator mentioned some laws that he thought were in one category and which were in the other. He says, things common to all nations, that is, which befall all, and are immutable with respect to their own nature and merits are moral offenses. All right, so we're going back to that category of moral law. That is, against the Decalogue, you know, the Ten Commandments, such as murder, adultery, theft, seduction from the true God, blasphemy, and smiting of parents. You know, some examples that he gave of moral offenses that were corrected by the judicial law. And so there is that continuity that remains today, that the civil government still ought to enforce justice, and the judicial law of the Old Testament does give direction regarding that. Now, it should be noted that there are two sources of discontinuity in modern application, two reasons that there might be differences between what we see in the Old Testament and what we would do today. The first one we've already kind of talked about, all right, that is redemptive historical differences. Differences between Israel's unique position in the Old Testament and every other nation at that time and now. And that's prominent in the confession of faith itself, the distinction that it's making. Israel held a unique position. It was the entire covenant people of God. Today, you know, lots of peoples are coming to Christ. But at that time, the nation was God's covenant people and the kingdom of God with that representative symbolic significance. Its land held special significance as the promised land. Not all the land was the promised land for Israel, but they had a promised land that was their inheritance in the kingdom of God. There were judicial laws that depended upon the Levitical priesthood. We don't have a Levitical priesthood anymore, you know, that were bound up with that institution, which is now obsolete. And one example would be the test for adultery in Numbers 5, which required taking up dust from the tabernacle in an elaborate ceremony. And it's so bound up with the administration at that time that it's also now obsolete to date. There were laws regarding tribal inheritance. There were the Sabbath year and the year of Jubilee rooted in the land. There were particular regulations for the cities of refuge, specifying certain cities and the like, and the death of the high priest that was involved. Laws regarding the inheritance of the Levites. These are things that were unique to Israel and their position. Now, even these laws are still instructive. For example, the laws regarding the inheritance of the Levites still teach the principle that those who proclaim God's word should be maintained by God's people. And Paul will bring that out. Those who serve at the tent are fed by the sacrifices, so in the New Testament, those who preach the gospel should make their living by the gospel. So there's a principle there, even then, but applied to the church. The laws regarding the cities of refuge. Certain particulars of that were unique to Israel, but they still teach us to distinguish between murder and manslaughter, as well as to seek due process and adjudication of cases. So that does teach us, in that case, judicial principles that we would still apply today, even though the particular form would be different. All right, so first, there's redemptive historical differences. Second, though, even in the Old Testament, and comparing them to us now, there would be situational differences. So for example, there might be technological developments that would bring a new situation that you would have to apply what was originally given to a new situation using the same principles, even if technology developed within the Old Testament, you would have to wisely apply what was given to the wilderness generation to, you know, in the days of Solomon or in the days of Ezra. There would be cultural context. There could be, in a particular case, aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Even in the Old Testament, wisdom was needed how to apply case laws to particular situations as new situations arose or as old situations changed. For example, one case law is about putting a parapet, like a fence, around the roof of your house. Now, why do you think the law said that you had to put a fence around the roof of your house? So people don't fall off, and people were typically on the roofs of their house. That was another floor of the home that people would walk on the roofs of their house. It was a living space, and so it was to make sure people don't fall off. Now, even in the Old Testament, what if that changed and no one started walking on the roofs anymore? that law would become obsolete and you'd have to, you know, you'd apply it in other ways. Today, of course, you know, you might put a fence around your swimming pool to make sure people don't accidentally fall in. So that's a change that's not really unique to the New Testament, but that's just the way case laws work. It's regarding a case and you use the principle and you apply it to the situation in front of you. Even in the Old Testament, the law against muzzling the ox while it treads out the grain should have taught the people that the laborer deserves his wages. And of course, in the New Testament, that's the principle that Paul brings out. God's not only just concerned about the ox, that it gets fed while it's doing the work, but that would apply how much more to a person who's doing the work that the worker should work with the hope of sharing in the fruit of his labor, that he is worthy of his hire, of his wages. That's in 1 Corinthians 9 and 1 Timothy 5. Twice refers to that. Also in the Old Testament, some cases required a determination on the judge's part how many lashes were required that would fit the crime. So there was a certain discretion there that the judge had to judge. How bad is this crime and how many lashes does this person require? And then the law limited it, too. It couldn't be more than 40. You don't want to degrade your brother in your sight. You want to adjudicate, you want to punish it, but then you also want to restore the person to the community. And so the law In Deuteronomy 25, verse 1 through 3, put limits on that, but also recognize there would be a range that would have to be discerned. For example, in Luke 12, Jesus talks about the principle that to whom much is given, much is required. The person who knows his master's will and doesn't do it is more accountable than the person who didn't know and didn't do it. Also, there were some cases where a ransom payment was sometimes accepted instead of the death penalty, although a ransom was not accepted in the case of murder, and I believe also in the case of manslaughter. But murder particularly, it says a ransom cannot be accepted, kind of implying that some other cases it could be accepted, and there are cases where it is explicitly said that a ransom payment might be imposed instead of a death penalty. For example, in Exodus 21, 30 through 32. So I think many, or at least some people who object to any binding relevance of the judicial law operate often on a misunderstanding of what the judicial laws required of Israel and what they would require today. That often there was a little more wisdom required in the application of the law to particular circumstances. And we have to look in scripture to make sure that we understand how it was supposed to operate. Also, a key thing is that the case laws were case laws. And so they present you a case, a situation. It's not necessarily saying that that's a good situation or that it was a good thing that people got to that situation, but it's saying, what do you do if you find yourself in that situation? Sometimes you'll read a case law and it's like, if a man sells his daughter into slavery and then this happens and this happens, this is what you're supposed to do. And we're like, rewind that a little bit. What's that part at the beginning? Why would that happen? Well, that's not the point of the law. The point is, once you get to that situation, if you're a judge and these people bring the case before you, what are you supposed to do now? And so look at the principles in play that were directing God's people what God wanted in the case that was in front of them. it's not always saying that the situation itself was uh... a good one or one that ought to be approved uh... there's one where a man takes a second wife and uh... he he likes a second wife more he still can't take away the right of the first born from the son of his first wife Well, is polygamy the point of that law? No, the point is don't deny the right of the firstborn just because you don't like his mother very much. So that's the point. The situation is kind of taken as a given. All right, this presents itself to you. It's already happened. What do you do now? And so that's an important point of interpreting the case laws as well. All right, I know I've run through a lot of things. Any questions at this point before I go further? Not so much the second one, but the first one, yes. In his own statement, just to be exact, he mentioned seduction from the true God and blasphemy, because there was a law against someone who is trying to bring people away from the true religion onto a false religion, which is different than just having an idolater living among the people. But anyway, go ahead. Well, to whom is honor due? Is God due His honor? Well, I'm talking about Romans 13. Respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. You know, so even in there, you could see a first table reference. But I think when it goes on to eight and nine, it's going back to primarily ethics of a Christian. The rest, like chapter 12 as well. So I think 13, one through seven is where it's talking about a Christian's duty to the civil government, which implies certain duties of the civil government, because he's God's minister. But I think both tables of the law would be part of God's wrath upon the evildoer. But when he goes on to 8 and 9, he's not addressing the civil government, he's addressing the believer, as he's telling them, to, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not covet, things of that sort. So. to enforce the worship of the true God. And that seems to me to be a very practical question, particularly as you have Christians who are in civil government. What is their responsibility? Right. Yeah, so I think a lot probably could be said. One thing would be to go back to see what the Old Testament actually said. Did it force everyone within the land of Canaan to worship God or not? Or did it allow for pagans to come into the country and live among them, as long as they weren't trying to bring Israel along with them? So first of all, we'd have to look at what does the Old Testament itself say? But then second, I think we use the same principle. What was unique to Israel? What is an application of the moral law that would be universally applicable to all nations? And I think you could argue certain parts of the enforcement of, for example, if someone transgresses the covenant and goes and worships other gods, that that person would be executed. That might be arguably unique to the land of Israel, because that says someone in your land who does this and transgresses the covenant. Whereas someone who blasphemes, that's a moral offense. I think there would be, and the Sabbath law, for example, is even applied to the sojourner who lives among you. So that there are ways that the civil government appropriately, and again, in fitting with the situation, could promote justice, both tables of the law, but without using the civil government as if it's going to be the instrument to convert people. It's putting a check on evildoing to produce peace in society, as our confession of faith says, to maintain piety and justice and peace. But then really just letting the gospel therefore go forth to actually do the work of converting. And the Spanish Inquisition or things like that really went far beyond the civil government's role to try to ferret out, you know, heretics and produce confession by torture and things of that sort. That's often what people think when they think of the Old Testament law, but that's not what it was promoting. And even if what the Old Testament is promoting, we still have to distinguish what's our situation, what's his duty in our context. Constantine's duty as emperor of a country that's maybe 10% Christian is going to be different than Cromwell, where everyone is virtually a church member. And even there, that there would be room for toleration of different Christian sects. And he's the one that invited the Jews back, in fact, to England so that they could be converted. But it didn't mean that someone could just come and start blaspheming up and down the street, that there would still be a role for the civil government to maintain order in society. I do have another question, but I don't want to get rid of it. Sure, we can talk afterwards as well, if you want. Or go ahead. No, no, we're not done. I just have more to say. Yes, I would agree. uh... that there's some things of course then we have to figure out what those things are and there's somethings that might apply to both actually a lot of things that would apply to both they just administer it the law differently with spiritual discipline instead of physical discipline but both of them are to do something when a murder happens but the church would excommunicate or sanction in that sort of way whereas the civil government would would work to execute the criminal but both of them would apply the law in their own respect uh... but yeah there might be some things though uh... that would be more applicable to one and than the other But the rulers of every commonwealth do have a God-given responsibility to carry out God's wrath upon the wrongdoer, to maintain piety, justice, and peace in their realm, to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. Those are just phrases from the New Testament, Romans 13, 1 Peter 2, 2 Timothy 2. And the civil government has flexibility to apply laws fitting for its situation, to make laws and to apply them as fits their situation, but it's obligated to enforce God's justice. It's not their own whim that is to be applied, but they must judge according to God's law, his moral law, and to the judicial law given by him insofar as the general equity thereof requires. that actually gives them more particular instruction on their role as a civil magistrate, just like, you know, the Bible also talks about what husbands ought to do and wives ought to do and tax collectors ought to do, so it also gives directions to the civil government. States should maintain God's justice in accordance with God's moral law, and they should model their laws after the judicial laws of Israel as an infallible example of God's moral law applied in a particular given society. That's what it looked like there, and so appropriate adaptation for particular circumstances elsewhere. And I was going to go on to say here, all of society should find instruction in the judicial laws. You as an individual should still realize, oh, I shouldn't trip a blind man. I should not curse the deaf. I should not commit homosexuality. I should not x, y, and z, steal from my neighbor. I should make sure that if I have an ox that's prone to gore to tie him up. If I have a swimming pool, I should take precautions so that there's not accidental death. An individual, not only the state, should find direction from the judicial laws and a family and a business, all according to their place and calling and the duties that they have. Also remember that these are civil laws. They often express a minimal standard, like don't kill your neighbor. which is not the full ideal, which is implied, which is you should love your neighbor. In fact, that's right in there in the case laws, you should love your neighbor as yourself. But that's the full ideal. But as civil laws, they're minimal. They're saying this is the boundaries, but you should not go beyond. And so don't kill your neighbor doesn't mean if you satisfy that, you've satisfied the law. But it should give you an idea of what God's will is. And the church also must apply God's law, like I said, with spiritual discipline, not with civil punishments. The church is told in 1 Corinthians 5 to purge the evil person from among you, quoting from the Old Testament law. Like the Israel of old, church is told to establish every charge by the evidence of two or three witnesses. So again, there's judicial principles that the church, as well as the civil government, should operate by. And the church should proclaim the substance of those typical ordinances. It should proclaim a spiritual jubilee in Christ. Those things that are not binding on the civil magistrate, the church should proclaim what they do mean. Another reason to study and understand the judicial laws, though, is apologetics. Because often, as you talk about the faith, especially those who are somewhat antagonistic already will often bring up the judicial law and mock it. For example, I was interacting with someone on Facebook recently who had contacted our church. And in the conversation, he was saying how bad the Bible is, he said, It tells us we can beat our slaves without punishment if they don't die within a few days. It says men that rape should pay the father for property damage and then forces the woman to marry their rapist. I'm so sorry you accept these teachings as true, authoritative, and good. Surely your mind is corrupted beyond repair. Very sad." That's what I get. All right. What do you do? Well, it's good for you to know what he's referring to and what they actually mean. So my response was, Physical punishment was used throughout the ancient world, not just for slaves, but the point of the law was that even slaves had protections. If they were killed, they were to be avenged. If they were injured, they were to be set free. Furthermore, the law prohibited man stealing and enslaving on pain of death. The law you reference about rape, recorded in Exodus 22, 16 through 17, and Deuteronomy 22, 28 through 29, is arguably about premarital sex, not rape. And that is my position. And it did not force the marriage upon the woman. As Exodus 22, 17 notes, her father could refuse to give her to them. Implied there is the woman is there with her father. She did not have to marry the man. The man would, though. He's the one that might be forced to. The man would still have to pay the engagement present, not property damage, the engagement present as a penalty. even whether or not he married her uh... and so actually it's it's very good law The Old Testament civil law must be understood in its context and as a minimal standard that was to begin to direct Israel onto righteousness. But the true intention of the law is found in Jesus' summary of the law, which is composed of two Old Testament verses. 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. So I added a little commentary there. But that was basically my response. And so it's good to study God's law, the judicial laws in particular, if for nothing else but apologetics. Because they're often used to say, well, see how immoral or see how bad the Bible is. We can't trust it, therefore, on anything else that might be less controversial. And so it's good for us to understand it and to see the wisdom and justice that's taught there. All right. Wrap that up now, and feel free to bring up anything else later. Next week I will be gone, and so Elder Stahl will be teaching a lesson, I think, on giving thanks. And I'll come back to God's law the week after that, as we look at the uses of God's law. Let's go ahead and close in prayer. Dear Father, we thank you for your word. We thank you for the direction that you give us to walk in your ways, to do justice, to walk in true piety, to walk humbly before you, to love our neighbor as ourself, We pray that you would also help us and aid us to walk in your ways, that you would grant us the joy and sense of your love, knowing your forgiveness, that we might embrace your ways and learn more and more to observe your commandments and to understand them rightly. We pray these things in Jesus' name. Amen.