The Duty of Earthly Kings: Two Tablets of Stone
Among churches that hold to the Belgic Confession of Faith, there is in the 36th article a clause that has led to much controversy and disagreement. The paragraph containing this sentence reads: “And the Government’s task is not limited to caring for and watching over the public domain but extends also to upholding the sacred ministry, with a view to removing and destroying all idolatry and false worship of the Antichrist; to promoting the kingdom of Jesus Christ; and to furthering the preaching of the gospel everywhere; to the end that God may be honored and served by everyone, as he requires in His Word.”[1] The disputed clause within this paragraph; “with a view to removing and destroying all idolatry and false worship of the Antichrist,” is built upon the idea that the entirety of the Decalogue is to be enforced by the civil magistrate. The charges laid against this article tend to be one or more of three things; the mixing of church and state, which is the main charge from those who hold to strict natural law ethics, an erroneous application of things that were only to be civilly enforced in the context of national Israel either viewed in the form of the Decalogue itself as is the opinion of NCT and dispensational theologians or in the form of certain applications of that Decalogue which is wrongly labeled theonomy by those who deny that there is a unifying principle among the distinctions in the Mosaic Law laid out by the Westminster Confession. We will first dispel these charges by having a look at the division of Biblical Law in principle and precept and apply this to both the Mosaic and the New administration. Secondly, we will argue the affirmative case for the disputed clause by relating the eternality of Biblical law to the responsibilities of those who have positions of authority in the home, the church, or the state.
Defense:
The word Law in the Scriptures is used to refer to various things. John 10:34, 12:34, and 15:25 refer to the Psalms and the Prophets as The Law. Luke 24:44, Matt 5:17-18 refers to the Mosaic precepts specifically as being The Law. Broadly defined, The Law is the Bible. Biblical law, to be differentiated from The Law, is any command of God within the Bible. Ultimately, if we want to understand Biblical law, we need to first understand the righteousness of God. Righteousness is perfect obedience to a given set of laws. This standard of righteousness is God’s character and it is from that character that the laws which are the reflection thereof are drawn[2].
Sin is ultimately a failure to meet this standard of perfection in regard to being conformed to this righteous standard of God’s character. This is aptly stated by Hodge when he says, “herein is sin that we are not like God”[3]. However, unrighteousness cannot exist unless there was no law given for that law to be broken. When we look at the fall of Adam, we see in Ecclesiastes 7:29 that he was made righteous, and in Romans 5:12 that he fell from this righteousness through sin, thus marring the image of God which was the reflection of His character. 1 John 3:4 defines sin as a breaking of the Law.
Although the opposition to Hodge’s definition can be defended in the case of Adam by pointing to the prohibition of the forbidden fruit as the given law that gave rise to sin rather than a conformity to God’s character revealed in the Decalogue, we have cases of sexual immorality being condemned as sin before the giving of a written prohibition of it in Genesis 19 and 39. In Exodus 16 before the Mosaic law had been given God tells Moses in the fifth verse without explicitly commanding it, that the people will gather twice as much bread on the sixth day. The people then do this without him telling them to do it as we see in verse 22-23 which seems to go against the commands that he does give them about not gathering more than they will eat in a day. This implies that the people knew already without being told that the seventh day was a day of rest rather than of work. Reinforcing this idea, verse four tells us that the very reason for the giving of the mana was so that God may test if they would follow His commands.
What commands about sexual immorality and Sabbaths have in common is that they were identified before their respective laws were officially given yet both of these laws are reflected in the creation account. We see in Genesis 2:24 that the natural order of sexuality, being one man and one woman, is revealed in the creation account referenced by Jesus as the grounds for a standard of sexual ethics. In Genesis 2:3 we see that God sets apart one day in seven for the purpose of rest. The breaking of either of these sins is condemned in the Decalogue which was given in the form of two tables. The first table of the law is made up of the first 4 commandments regarding our conduct in relation to God. The second table containing the last 6 commandments are given regarding our conduct in relation to men. These two tables are referenced by Christ in Matt 23 when He was asked what the greatest commandment was. He answers by saying that there are in fact two principal laws that the full breadth of Biblical law is derived from. We see in this reply two things: firstly, the Decalogue is summed up into two greater laws regarding the two spheres of human responsibility. Secondly, all commandments in the Scriptures are based upon the Decalogue and flow thereout. This truth is spoken by the Westminster Divine, William Perkins in his exposition of The Sermon on the Mount wherein he says; “The Ceremoniall lawe concerned the Iewes onely: the Iudiciall lawe did indeede principally concerne them; but yet so farre forth as it tendeth to the establishing of the Morall law, hauing in it common equitie, it concerneth all people, in all times and places.”[4] The two great commandments: “love your God with all your heart…soul…mind” and “love your neighbour as yourself,” imply that to do either of these you must follow commandments regarding your relation to them. Christ elaborates further upon this idea in John 14:15 when He says “if you love me you will keep my commandments.” When we take these two statements of Christ and let the Word interpret itself it becomes clear that you cannot love God or man without following a set of laws regarding your relationship to them.
The Decalogue, being the “sum of all the law and the prophets” according to Jesus, is not to be obeyed only insofar as the letter, but in step with it being a sum, there are many precepts that together constitute true obedience thereto. This sum is best defined as a set of eternal principles. The principle is the foundation that a given precept or set of precepts is based upon. The precept, in essence, is the principle applied. These precepts can take different forms given in different administrations such as “do not muzzle an Ox while it is treading out grain” in Deuteronomy 25:4 and “the laborer is worthy of his wages” in Leviticus 19:13 applied to the payment of pastors in 1 Timothy 5:18. This type of application is said by Theonomists to be evidence of the eternality of what is commonly called Civil Mosaic law.[5] However, these laws clearly fit under the eighth commandment which is succinctly expounded in the WSC as follows; “What is required in the eighth commandment? The eighth commandment requireth the lawful procuring and furthering the wealth and outward estate of ourselves and others. What is forbidden in the eighth commandment? The eighth commandment forbiddeth whatsoever doth or may unjustly hinder our own or our neighbor’s wealth or outward estate.”[6] Neither the precepts in the Mosaic or the New administration are in essence new but are different applications of a shared underlying principle. The idea that precepts are laws in themselves is incorrect. Precepts are in truth a form or application of the principle which is the essence of the precept. To prohibit both sodomy and pornography is to apply the seventh commandment in two scenarios yet they are not truly two separate laws but are one law applied in two ways. This means that when the application of that principle changes from administration to administration it is not because some laws do not reflect God’s character nor is it because some laws are not eternal but it is because in different scenarios the general equity of the principle calls for the law to be applied differently in practice. Samuel Rutherford explains the confessional application of Mosaic Law in this way; “the judicial Law, as judicial, and as it concerned the Republick of the Jews only, is abolished, though the moral equity of all those be not abolished; also some punishments were merely symbolical, to teach the detestation of such a vice…I should think the punishing with death the man that gathered sticks on the Sabbath was such; in all this, the punishing of a sin against the Moral Law by the Magistrate, is Moral and perpetual.”[7] This is highlighted especially in the condemnation of sodomy before its explicit prohibition. Without being explicitly given a list of precepts to follow there were applications of the seventh principle that when not followed resulted in a condemnation of sin. This function of eternal principles can be seen likewise in the first table when applied to the worship of God. An example of this is the account of Cain’s offering being rejected. Matthew Henry writes this: “Cain’s was only a sacrifice of acknowledgement offered to the Creator; the meat-offerings of the fruit of the ground were no more, and for aught I know, they might be offered in innocency. But Abel brought a sacrifice of atonement, the blood whereof was shed in order to remission, thereby owning himself a sinner.”[8] This structure of sacrificial order which is also displayed in Leviticus 1 and 2 teaches that we must recognize our sin and have atonement made for it before we can come to God and offer Him acceptable praises. This pattern of blood sacrifice flows through from the first man all the way until the antitypical death of Christ. This order fits neatly under the first commandment expounded upon excellently by the WLC which mentions in it the condemnation of not giving God His due, incorrigibleness, hardness of heart, pride, presumption, and carnal security, all of which are characteristic of the impenitence that Cain displayed by refusing to offer a blood sacrifice showing that he thought himself to be acceptable in God’s sight thus offering Him the fruits of the ground.[9] Applying this principle to the NT, we see that we cannot rightly and acceptably approach God in worship unless we have already through the acknowledgement of His holiness and our depravity, been brought to a place of repentance for our sin and faith in the finished work of Christ.
Affirmative case:
When applying this division of law to national Israel to see how it relates to NT nations, we must recognize three things; national Israel, being primarily typological, contains precepts that serve purely typological purposes, its head of state by virtue not of typological function but of Covenant, was obligated to enforce Biblical law upon those under his authority, and finally, gentile kings are likewise commanded to submit to Christ in this manner. Israel itself is the OT people of God. This people of God in the OT are the typological manifestation of God’s kingdom on the earth. Certain theologians such as Frame believe that the function of Biblical law in national Israel was specifically restricted to its function as this type of God’s kingdom.[10] There is, however, contrary to this idea, a unique position of authority placed on those who are federal heads. These federal heads are not the ultimate head of their respective Covenants but are those who act as ministers in their Covenantal sphere of authority under their head which is Christ. Frame’s understanding of these Covenants between men is that the family is the primary Covenant from which all other Covenants come and as a result, all Covenants will be related to the familial Covenant. He teaches this concept by saying; “the family is the basic unit of human society… all the institutions of society – prophetic, priestly, and kingly – begin in the family. To children, parents are rulers, educators, providers, and evangelists. All other forms of authority are extended forms of fatherhood and motherhood.”[11] This is further fortified by the use of familial language in reference to the church in 2 Corinthians 6:18 and the state in Isiah 49:23, which show that the function of the Covenants of church and state mirrors that of the Covenant in the home.
1 Corinthians 11:3 says that headship in the home is ordered thusly; “the head of the wife is the husband, the head of the husband is Christ, and the head of Christ is God.” This in no way means that the head of the woman is not Christ but merely that there is an authority structure in the home wherein the husband is responsible for those under his care. This works itself out in the same way for the church and the state. Christ is the head of the church and as the head thereof He has chosen for Himself ministers to serve in His spiritual kingdom as shepherds over His sheep as is seen in 1 Peter 5:2-4. In the state, which is also a kingdom of Christ, He has also ordained for Himself ministers to serve Him in His civil kingdom according to Romans 13:1. Yet, He remains the head of that kingdom and reigns as the king of kings and the Lord of Lords, the high priest, and the head of all.
In the wealth of texts that speak about the responsibilities of federal heads in the home 1 Samuel 3:13 stands out as it adds further clarity in regard to the level that discipline and restraint of sin are included in the responsibilities that they are held accountable to. In the matter of the responsibilities that church officers have in regard to this disciplining and restraining of sin, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 1 Corinthians 5:13, and 1 Timothy 5:20 state that the officers are to separate these unrepentant congregants. The consequence of officers eschewing this responsibility is that those unlawfully partaking in the benefits of church Covenant will be judged either spiritually or physically by the Lord as we are taught in 1 Corinthians 11:27. The blood of these unworthy partakers cover the hands of the church officers that refuse to heed the commands in Scripture to watch over their sheep and to practice proper discipline for which they will be held accountable as per James 3:1. The responsibility that heads of state have consists of a likewise necessity to enforce God’s law. Both Romans 13:2-4 and 1 Peter 2:14 attest to this in stating that the very purpose of government is to protect those who do good and to punish all unrighteousness.
The standard of good and evil being measured by God’s character reflected in both tables of His Law shows that federal heads in Covenant with God are not only themselves to be obedient to God’s Law, but to enforce this standard upon those under their authority regardless of what Covenant they are head of. Lastly, not only are Christian magistrates obligated to uphold God’s Law but Psalm 2:10-12 written in reference to kings that were plotting against God and His people, commands magistrates everywhere to turn to Christ and come into Covenant with God. If Biblical law is an eternal set of principles being applied through general equity to reach the Lex Propria in every sphere of life instead of a tripartite division or a progressive post-lapse restoration of ethical precepts climbing epoch by epoch back to the creation order the charges laid against BC 36 evaporate. It is not only proper for civil magistrates to enforce both tables of the Law but it is a legal obligation divinely mandated.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the purpose of federal authority in society always includes encouraging righteousness and punishing unrighteousness. In the case of the state, this is the primary duty of the federal head. Righteousness, in its proper sense, is full alignment with God’s character revealed to us in the Decalogue which is ingrained upon the conscience of every man from the first to the last. Therefore, if federal authorities wish to be obedient to their divinely ordained responsibilities, they must apply the true standard of righteousness upon those under their care through general equity. If they seek to craft their own standard of righteousness it will be unrighteous by default if it differs from the divine standard by even one iota. From this we see, BC 36 is not espousing Theonomy, nor is it a seeking to recover the types and shadows of the Mosaic administration, but it seeks only to rightly define and apply the righteousness of God to the lives of all in classic Reformed fashion, “that God may be honored and worshipped by every one, as He commands in His Word.”[12]
[1] Christian Reformed Church, Psalter Hymnal (Grand Rapids: CRC Publications, 1987), 856.
[2] A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1909), 529.
[3] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol 2 (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 2016), 187.
[4] William Perkins, A godly and learned exposition of Christ’s Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1608), 70.
[5] John Frame, The Doctrine of the Christian Life (Philipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2001), 218.
[6]Westminster Assembly, The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition (Philadelphia: William S. Young), 414-415.
[7] Samuel Rutherford, The Divine Right of Church-Government and Excommunication (London: John Field, 1646), 493-494
[8] Henry, M. (1994). Matthew Henry’s commentary on the Whole Bible. Peabody: Hendrickson. 17.
[9] Westminster Assembly, The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition (Philadelphia: William S. Young), 247-249.
[10] John Frame, The Doctrine of the Christian Life (Philipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2001), 217.
[11] John Frame, The Doctrine of the Christian Life (Philipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2001), 595.
[12] Christian Reformed Church, Psalter Hymnal (Grand Rapids: CRC Publications, 1987), 856.
