Samuel Rutherford on the OT Judicial Law

Here is another Flaming Scot on the OT Judicial Law

Samuel Rutherford, A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience, pg.298

Judicial Laws may be judicial and Mosaic, and so not obligatory to us, according to the degree and quality of punishment, such as is Deut. 13. the destroying the City, and devoting all therein to a curse; we may not do the like in the like degree of punishment, to all that receive and defend Idolaters and blasphemers in their City: and yet that some punishment by the sword, be inflicted upon such a City, is of perpetual obligation; because the Magistrate bears the sword to take vengeance on ill doers, and so on these that are partakers of his ill deeds, who brings another Gospel, 2 John v. 10.

Greg Bahnsen on the Civil Law

This begins a three-part intermediary study on the three sets of Biblical Law (Moral, Civil, and Ceremonial) and how they both relate to each other and how they are to be received in the New Covenant life.

From “The Westminster Assembly and the Equity of the Judicial Law”

By Dr. Greg Bahnsen

Civil Law

Quite clearly, the Puritan zeal for Reformed theology was not, given the turmoil of their day, inimical to socio-political concerns. God’s infallible word in Scripture, whose authority they confessed to be superior to all human opinion and traditions, was the moral standard for all conduct in every area of life. This included civil affairs. Given the degenerating condition of modern society, with a frightening escalation of criminal activity yet near-total failure of our present penal system, it is not unreasonable for those who love the Reformed faith and its full-orbed, Biblical worldview to ask what our Puritan forefathers confessed about God’s justice in the area of civil law. Could their voice from 350 years ago speak to us with greater Scriptural consistency and soundness than the confused opinions of our own weak and wayward generation?

What did the Westminster theologians say about those provisions in Scripture which address civil magistrates and the punishment of crime, particularly those civil norms found amid the “judicial laws” of Moses (e.g., Exodus 21-22)?

In chapter 19, section 4, the Confession teaches us: (1) God gave “sundry” judicial laws to Israel “as a body politick”; (2) these “expired” along with that state; (3) that which is now obligatory in those laws is what “the general equity thereof may require” — but (4) nothing further.

The popular attitude of our generation — both outside and inside the Christian church (which is a commentary in itself) — is that the civil laws of the Mosaic revelation are outlandish, out-dated, and surely not morally acceptable for modern states. Those who, like “theonomists,” do not repudiate the moral validity and use of the Mosaic judicial laws in contemporary political affairs have scorn heaped upon them as anachronistic fools or dangerous tyrants. Today even theologians who claim to be “Reformed” widely ridicule or emphatically reject the theonomic endorsement of the validity of Old Testament civil laws.

But we should honestly ask: who is closer to the Reformed theology of the Westminster Confession on this point today, theonomists or their detractors?

Even as hostile a critic as Meredith Kline had to concede that the Westminster Confession and Catechisms are theonomic in perspective (Westminster Theological Journal, v. 41, 1978, pp. 173-174). Taking a more detailed look at this question, Sinclair Ferguson later had to acknowledge that section 19.4 in the Confession is indeed consistent with the theonomic position, and that there is a “practical” coincidence between the views of the Westminster commissioners and the civil applications of the theonomic view today (Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, eds. Barker & Godfrey, Zondervan, 1990, pp. 329, 334, 347).

His only hope was to show that the Westminster Confession does not strictly require a theonomic interpretation (pp. 345, 346, 348-349). Yet even in contending for this diminished thesis, the precision of Ferguson’s article slips, as he overstates and thus misconstrues the theonomic view of “general equity” (pp. 331, 343, 347), and exegetically confuses the notion of an “equity” found in the law with the logically distinct and philosophically different notion of “the equity of the law” (pp. 330-331).