American Clarity Essays political, philosophical, and theological from an American romantic.

Of the many controversial stances I have taken, few have resulted in more opposition than my declaration that God’s Law is eternally applicable to human society.  As such, in the interest of sparing time, I’ve created this primer to explain the necessity of a Biblical foundation for law, and to address the most common objections against one.

Before addressing these objections, it must be known that the greatest reason for promoting Biblical principles within a Christian society is that God has established these principles in the creation of Israel.  As such, it is reasonable to conclude that since He is God, He is righteous, and Israel is His, He would not have dispensed a poorly crafted or quasi-moral legal system.  Rather, it is only sensible to accept that these are the highest legal and moral principles ever drafted, and that we can neither improve nor reject them if we are to live righteously and function optimally.

As such, here are the most common, most reasonable objections to such a system.

1) Do you want to make eating shellfish illegal, too?

The Bible is very clear that while cleanliness laws and ordinances served a purpose until Christ’s death, and will serve a purpose for Jews in the Millenium, the purpose of ordinances has been superseded by Jesus’ own sacrifice and holiness, which ordinances were intended to represent.

the high priest went alone once a year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the people’s sins committed in ignorance; ⁸ the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing. ⁹ It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience— ¹⁰ concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation. -Hebrews 9:7-10

But the Scriptures are clear that while the performance of ordinances is not presently required, a necessary result of receiving the Holy Spirit is a heart for God’s Law.  And this new heart not only results in God’s principles of interaction, but the very legal standards which accompany them.  The prophets plainly declare that God’s moral Law will be taught to all nations, and that one day, the world will recognize His eternal standard — as partially declared by His Law — is supreme.

²⁶ I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. ²⁷ I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. -Ezekiel 36:26-27

And, in regard to the Millenial reign of Christ,

² Many nations shall come and say,

“Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
To the house of the God of Jacob;
He will teach us His ways,
And we shall walk in His paths.”
For out of Zion the law shall go forth,
And the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.  -Micah 4:2

As God’s Law condemned, the ordinances represented cleansing, holiness, and salvation: the side of the law which was fulfilled in Christ alone. And thus, while ordinances have served their symbolic purpose, evil and justice are eternally relevant.   They have no replacement.

2) Jesus nailed the Law to the cross

This objection refutes itself, primarily because it admits that the Law — insofar as it provides moral principles, and not priestly or cleanliness ordinances — is so morally upright, that Jesus had to die because we would not follow it.

This leads opponents of Biblical law to ask whether or not a Christian has a greater duty to follow and support God’s standards after Christ’s execution.  For Christ’s death did not make sin righteous or acceptable: it simply covered the Christian’s transgressions with Holy blood, transgressions which we should now abhor.

¹⁷ “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. ¹⁸ For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. ¹⁹ Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. -Matthew 5:17-19

If it were true that sin was no longer sin, and that Christians could not have a standard for righteousness, then the Apostle Paul would not have declared a difference between the New Man and the Old Man, nor would Peter have commanded us to reject false teachers, nor would God have have expressly stated his hatred and coming judgment for the beliefs and deeds of the Nicolaitans.  And if God hates certain beliefs and behaviors, then we can be certain that God also hates certain laws and prefers other.  Legal and moral relativism are better left for Satan.

3) Jesus commanded us to be merciful and to love our neighbors

Most Christians are not aware that Jesus explicitly stated that to love someone means to interact with them within the boundaries of the law.

³⁴ Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. ³⁵ One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: ³⁶ “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

 ³⁷ Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.^{‘ 38} This is the first and greatest commandment. ³⁹ And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ ⁴⁰ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”  -Matthew 22:34-40

This does not mean we are never to have mercy.  One may most certainly forgive certain wrongdoings (particularly within their heart), but a person is entitled to justice under the Law, a Law which Jesus described as loving.  If people were not entitled to justice, then every Christian would have to be an anarchist, and could never vote or even oppose the act of murder.  Yet, in a past article relating to this very subject, it has been explained that God considers a rejection of justice as defined by His law to be sin as well.

   ⁴² “Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone. -Luke 11:42

As such, for matters in which the law is not required, we are commanded to forgive the transgressor and forego the legal remedy.  But for such egregious acts as murder, rape, kidnapping, adultery, and others, it is wrong to allow offenders to live, as expressed by our Creator.  And if someone is willing to suggest otherwise, that God’s standards are unmerciful, then it is only fair to ask whether law can ever be merciful at all, and who is responsible for defining what “merciful” means, and when mercy becomes injustice.  If God does not agree with a definition of justice, that definition which opposes God’s is wrong.

4) It will establish a theocracy

It must be made known that the New Testament, in its firm proclamation of grace and Christian liberty, declares that we are dead to the power of the law (which is spiritual death), and that Christ alone is our salvation, and that our kingdom is of Heaven.  Yet, though we are not living in a theocratic state — meaning that God has not expressly declared Himself leader of a geographically defined country, and thus neither punishment for apostasy nor the establishment of the governmental papacy is necessary — Biblical laws of human interaction still stand.  These laws are the Christian’s constitution, and are the necessary legal conclusion toward which the Christian is led, supposing they have the Holy Spirit and are listening to His voice.

For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
¹⁵ But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before,
¹⁶ “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,” -Hebrews 10:14-16

5) We have a new covenant anyway

It has also been argued that the Old Covenant is no longer necessary, that our new covenant has new rules which apply only to the church itself.  But arguing this point blatantly disregards a purpose of the Old Covenant, that first covenant being a witness to future generations of mankind’s inability to live up to God’s standard.  As such, the New Covenant does not destroy the laws of the Old Covenant, but rather allows us to live in God’s presence despite our inability to keep God’s Law.  To put this another way, Jesus’ arrival did not make what was good evil, but rather declared the requirement of human adherence secondary to salvation by grace, through Christ’s blood.

The old covenant: 

¹² “Then it shall come to pass, because you listen to these judgments, and keep and do them, that the LORD your God will keep with you the covenant and the mercy which He swore to your fathers. ¹³ And He will love you and bless you and multiply you; He will also bless the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your land, your grain and your new wine and your oil, the increase of your cattle and the offspring of your flock, in the land of which He swore to your fathers to give you. ¹⁴¹⁵ And the LORD will take away from you all sickness, and will afflict you with none of the terrible diseases of Egypt which you have known, but will lay You shall be blessed above all peoples; there shall not be a male or female barren among you or among your livestock. them on all those who hate you. ¹⁶ Also you shall destroy all the peoples whom the LORD your God delivers over to you; your eye shall have no pity on them; nor shall you serve their gods, for that will be a snare to you. 

The new covenant:

¹⁴ For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, ¹⁵ having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, ¹⁶ and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. -Ephesians 2:14-16

It is also worth mentioning that the Apostle Paul, while making the case that new Gentile converts to Christianity should not be overwhelmed with moral teachings, argued that converts could learn the rest about God’s character and Law by attending their local synagogue.

6) It will force non believers to follow rules that don’t apply to them

The first problem with this argument is that it presupposes that any system of law is voluntary, and that those under law always have an option to reject the laws of the country to which they belong.  But John Locke expressly stated that to enter into any social contract necessitates that the majority act for the whole, and that without the subjugation of the minority, political society cannot exist (Second Treatise of Government, sect 95-98).  As such, supposing the majority of a society are Christian, for this society to not reflect a Godly legal system could only be indicative of disobedience, a firm rejection of God’s Truth, justice, and person.

   ⁴² “Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone. -Luke 11:42

Insofar as people may argue that such theological principles should never apply to those within a free society, Locke also argued otherwise, declaring that any “liberties” or “rights” which contradict the positive laws of Scripture — meaning, those laws expressed in the Pentateuch — are entirely void (Second Treatise, sect 135-136).

Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. [...] And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.  -George Washington, farewell address, September 17, 1796

7) The Law obstructs the cause of liberty

It has often been argued that certain of God’s provisions are too restrictive, and should a society seek Biblical legal standards, nothing less than liberty would be at stake.  These opponents of Divine Law usually believe that a prohibition of fornication, adultery, commercial pornography, no-fault divorce, safety regulations, animal welfare, permanent debt, and usury infringes upon the right of the individual to do what he pleases with his own body, money, and property.

But there are several indispensable maxims which every man in pursuit of liberty must remember.  First, enforcing a subjective standard of liberty is not necessarily liberating, since such an act would impose an opinionated belief system upon another.  Second, total “liberty” — or the pursuit of anarchy — is so dangerous that its opposition entirely predicates the existence of government.  And third, if liberty and justice were mutually opposed, then every free system would be unjust, and every just system would be totalitarian (and of course, these two qualities must concur in order for civilization to exist at all).  Therefore, we may conclude that liberty and justice must not only coexist, but harmonize within specific boundaries, that those specific boundaries must be objective, and that it is only moral to enforce such boundaries when others violate them.

As such, the only acceptable definition of liberty is God’s, prescribed in His divinely revealed law (Second Treatise, 56-58, and 135-136).  There are certain evils which He permits, only to protect us from the totalitarian tendencies of humans (which is why property rights are so strong, and land was to be reformed), and others which He knows must be swiftly addressed, if society is not to pervert itself and collapse (which is why sexuality and usury are strictly regulated).  If a so-called liberty is a license to engage in an evil previously prohibited by God, then that “liberty” is not a liberty at all, but rather an acceptance of injustice.

The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatable things, called by the same name—liberty. -Abraham Lincoln, address at sanitary fair, 1864

8) Executions will allow for less conversions

This stance errs on the side of mercy, for which it often receives commendation.  But it does not consider another side to the problem: that the spread of evil is greatly corrosive, addictive, painful, and also obstructs the cause of salvation.  It is also wrong to assume that God would have not considered eternal salvation before issuing such decrees, almost tantamount to declaring that He is not only ignorant, but also cold-hearted for requiring such a standard.

But it is most clear that a Biblical system of justice is focused on the victim, not the criminal.  Such a system dispenses reparations when necessary, corporal punishment when physical assault is concerned, and execution for crimes which would otherwise bring condemnation upon the entire nation, if the criminal was allowed to live.  As such, a criminal justice system focused on the criminal is not only an improper direction of justice, but also further victimizes victims by forcefully taxing them for the incarceration, feeding, entertainment, and oftentimes failed rehabilitation of those who harm them.

9) Doesn’t God break His own laws?

Explained in a previous article

10) God told us not to judge

If this were true, then taking a stance against a Biblical system of Law would also be sinful.