An Examination of the Lexicology of Theocracy

Me: “I believe that the Bible should be our foundation for discerning how we ought to influence government.”

Someone-else: “You are advocating a theocratic utopia!”

Me: “Ummmm… No.”

The above exchange is all too common, unfortunately, to be more than slightly humorous to me. I get that response all the time, and it is, to be honest, rather aggravating. :P

Many people have evinced a desire to understand what a theocracy really is, and as I am tired of trying to say the same thing over and over again, I thought it would be handy to answer the above response once and for all. (And put the debates all in one handy location. ;) )

But that is rather hard to do, because it really isn’t a response at all, but a knee-jerk reaction. However, the word Theocracy has a lot of varying connotations, and as they all have a profound lexicological bearing on Godly government, I believe it is worthwhile to discuss them.

As with any word that you want to find the best definition for, I will of course turn to Webster’s 1828 for a Biblical definition:

THEOC’RACY, n. [Gr. God, and power; to hold.] Government of a state by the immediate direction of God; or the state thus governed. Of this species the Israelites furnish an illustrious example. The theocracy lasted till the time of Saul.

This gives me a very good place to start my study. The modern dictionaries and common usage has watered and perverted this definition until it is practically unrecognizable, and lexicologically useless (except to throw at someone to annoy them). Getting back to the above definition would be a major improvement in the current state of our language, and also a major help in discerning God’s will for the formation and influence of government.

There are two rival definitions that are prevalent in usage today (other than the correct one).

One is used by a group of eminent (but with whom I passionately disagree with on several vital and foundational issues other than that of the definition of theocracy) scholars who call themselves theonomists for the most part.

The other is merely a ‘label.’ A word used for attack, rather than refutation. This form is so perverted and weakened that it carries just about as much weight as the ridiculous word ‘speciesist,’ which term is used to label someone who thinks that humans are (oh horror!) better than any other species of animal. In other words: pointless, useless, and meaningless. This is the term used in my opening exchange, and which really merits little more than what I am saying right here: ignore it. :)

There are, in fact, three groups of people who use the word Theocracy (other than the group that is right, of which I am a proud member, hehe).

The first are those people who use the word Theocracy correctly, and assume that I want to institute a nation in replica of OT Israel, complete with stonings for idolatry, adultery, and cursing your parents (with the possible exclusion of the ceremonial laws, whichever ones those might be).

The second is a group of people who believe that we shouldn’t use the Bible at all in government (on various grounds, all of which are wrong and heretical, and I will mainly point these people to 2 Timothy 3:16-17).

The third are the theonomists, who at first with me that we should use the Bible to determine government, assuming that I intend to do what the first group fears I will (although they call it by a different name). In other words: these people want me to institute a nation in replica of OT Israel, complete with stonings for idolatry, adultery, and cursing your parents (with the possible exclusion of the ceremonial laws, whichever ones those might be).

I am now going to refute all of the above at once by explaining why I believe that we definitely should not try to replicate the OT government (whether or not you exclude the ceremonial laws). My reason is very simple:

Israel was not only a theocracy, it was the only true theocracy that ever has existed, and ever can or will exist (outside of heaven, but that is a different topic).

The theonomists (from what I can tell) claim that every nation is a theocracy, if any is, and deny that Israel was any exception to the rule. They point to such verses as Daniel 2:21 (“he removeth kings, and setteth up kings”) and other similar verses to show that God has sovereign rule over every nation equally, and that to assert that He has more rule over Israel than over any other nation is lessening His sovereign power. Needless to say, theonomists are for the most part Calvinist, which makes it hard to debate them on this issue.

They are in part right (every lie has a bit of truth). God does remove kings, He does set up kings, He does guide the course of the nations, He does punish nations that give themselves over to abominations (every major nation that has accepted homosexuality, abortion, and like sins have ceased to exist within a few generations from that point).

But God did not orchestrate and lead Hitler to slaughter his millions. He did not order terrorists to attack the World Trade Center. It was not His will for any of these things to happen, any more than it is His will for any person to go to hell (although they do), or for the deaths of hurricane Katrina (although they still died), or for the thousands of innocent orphans of Haiti to have the troubles they are having (although they are).

All these things are our fault, because of our rebellion, our sin. Our world is cursed by sin. (For more info on that, see Answers In Genesis.)

But.

God did rule directly over the OT nation of Israel before the Monarchy.

Look at Webster’s definition (that he got from the Bible): whatever Israel was before the monarchy, and was not afterwards, that is what a theocracy is.

Theocracy is a state of government like a democracy, a monarchy, a republic, or even socialism.

The word is from two Greek words: Theos and Cratos: God Rules. Democracy is where the people rule (also aptly called mobocracy by the American founding fathers and me). A monarchy is where a king rules (there are elected monarchies, hereditary monarchies, etc.). Theocracy is where God rules.

That was what Israel was. It was the first and last true theocracy.

Judges 8:22-23 Then the men of Israel said unto Gideon, Rule thou over us, both thou, and thy son, and thy son’s son also: for thou hast delivered us from the hand of Midian.
23 And Gideon said unto them, I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you: the LORD shall rule over you.

God instituted a unique system of government for Israel. There was a hierarchy of officers, captains, princes, and elders, and above all those was one man: the judge (there were of course other judges, but this was the judge). So far it looks like a monarchy (rule by one man). But that is not what God thought. And neither did the Israelites.

1 Samuel 8:4-5 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,
5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.

They wanted a king so that they would be like the other nations (in direct defiance of God’s covenant with them for them to be unique and separate, which we will get to).

1 Samuel 8:7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

They were not merely requesting a change of human leadership (“they have not rejected thee”) but a change from God’s theocratic system of government for a monarchy (“they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them”).

So how did the theocracy work?

Deuteronomy 17:8-10 If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, [being] matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the LORD thy God shall choose;
9 And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and inquire; and they shall show thee the sentence of judgment:
10 And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place which the LORD shall choose shall show thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee:

If your local judges and Levites are unable to decide a controversy (not matters of doctrine, but matters of judicial law), the parties involved go to the temple, to Jerusalem, the seat of the government and of God. There they bring it before the judge and the priests. What do they do? They use the holy oracles of God to get the answer straight from Him who sees all, is the law, and who is perfectly just. That is why…

Deuteronomy 17:12-13 And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel.
13 And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously.

Disobedience is punished by death (even if the original matter was small). That is because it is flagrant and direct defiance of God’s Word spoken to you directly. That is unique to Israel, and cannot be implemented with impunity in a NT government situation. True, we are commanded by God to obey the government (true government), but we are even more strongly commanded to obey our parents (in our youth). You aren’t committing a capital crime if you disobey your father just once (even under the OT law). This is just one of the many instances where Israel’s unique, theocratic situation deeply affects its criminal law.

Now, why was Israel a theocracy, and how did it become one?

Very important question, glad I asked it for you.

Deuteronomy 7:6 For thou [art] an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that [are] upon the face of the earth.
7 The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye [were] the fewest of all people:
8 But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

There is the ‘why,’ plain and simple.

Deuteronomy 7:12-13 And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only [ye heard] a voice.
13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, [even] ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

This is explained in several parts of the law, that the ten commandments were the core of the covenant between God and Israel. They bound themselves to obey them on pain of death. Several, were of course, already a part of the role of government (thou shalt not steal, etc.). Others were already sins (thou shalt not covet, etc.) Yet others were rather new (remember the Sabbath to keep it holy). But this law became assimilated into the government system of Israel (punishing covenants is part of the role of government), and therefrom sprang laws making actions that are abominations to God capital crimes.

This is why we cannot merely extract the ceremonial laws and implement the rest. We cannot replicate that covenant: it was initiated by God, and relied on the oracles that are now gone by.

We can do a few other things to learn about government from OT Israel though (you can learn tons of other things from it as well, of course). Such as, because we know that God kept the laws of Israel based off of the normal, unchanging, role of government (with some additions), we know that if a law wasn’t in OT Israel, we definitely shouldn’t implement it nowadays (a law in principle, not the exact application).

There are lots of verses that could be added, supporting my above conclusions, but I will spare you the necessary repetition. I will, however, conclude with a series of passages conclusively setting the OT Israel in its unique and unreproducible status.

Exodus 34:10 And he said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation: and all the people among which thou [art] shall see the work of the LORD: for it [is] a terrible thing that I will do with thee.

Deuteronomy 4:5-8 Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it.
6 Keep therefore and do [them;] for this [is] your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation [is] a wise and understanding people.
7 For what nation [is there so] great, who [hath] God [so] nigh unto them, as the LORD our God [is] in all [things that] we call upon him [for?]
8 And what nation [is there so] great, that hath statutes and judgments [so] righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?

(Notice that the other nations did not say “Why don’t we do that too?”!)

Deuteronomy 4:31-38 (For the LORD thy God [is] a merciful God;) he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them.
32 For ask now of the days that are past, which were before thee, since the day that God created man upon the earth, and [ask] from the one side of heaven unto the other, whether there hath been [any such thing] as this great thing [is,] or hath been heard like it?
33 Did [ever] people hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as thou hast heard, and live?
34 Or hath God assayed to go [and] take him a nation from the midst of [another] nation, by temptations, by signs, and by wonders, and by war, and by a mighty hand, and by a stretched out arm, and by great terrors, according to all that the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes?
35 Unto thee it was showed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he [is] God; [there is] none else beside him.
36 Out of heaven he made thee to hear his voice, that he might instruct thee: and upon earth he showed thee his great fire; and thou heardest his words out of the midst of the fire.
37 And because he loved thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them, and brought thee out in his sight with his mighty power out of Egypt;
38 To drive out nations from before thee greater and mightier than thou [art,] to bring thee in, to give thee their land [for] an inheritance, as [it is] this day.

(Notice that the purpose of Israel was not to convert other nations to its form of government, but to drive them out and destroy and decimate them.)

Deuteronomy 5:3-4 The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, [even] us, who [are] all of us here alive this day.
4 The LORD talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire,

This theocratic covenant was even unique to a particular time period in Israel’s history. It started at Moses, and ended at Christ (isn’t that interesting?).

This is only one plank out of 8 foundational principles of theonomocracy.

With joy and peace in Christ,

Jay Lauser

Why Politics?

Greetings,

This is an article that I posted in my forum, Liberty’s Light. I pray that it will be able to have an impact here as well.

What is important about a biblical nation?

When David saw the blasphemies of Goliath and announced his intention to fight him, he was confronted with incredulity and assertions that it was impossible. His response echoes through time. Instead of defending the “possibility” of his intention, for he knew that it was impossible, he cried out “Is there not a cause?” That was what his focus was on, for he knew that if there was a cause, there was a way in the Lord of Hosts. And now, looking at the state of the world today, I say, “Is there not a cause?” And there is a cause. When the light of liberty is dying, and those who profess to be of the bride of Christ are aiding and abetting its death by its silence, I say there is a cause. When the lies that say that the Word of God is unable to touch the very institutions that God founded, church, family, and government holds the main sway of influence in the world, I say there is a cause. When those who profess to be God’s children refuse to obey the clear commands of Scripture and stand on the inerrant nature and trustworthiness of the Word of God from its very first verse to its last in every area of life, including government, and thereby blaspheme the name of God, I say that there is a cause for us to rise up and give glory to God again. If we strive to make it known that God did institute government, and that He does have a plan for how it ought to work: that nations ought to be based utterly on the fact that government is an institution of God and not of men; that they must be free of modern sophistry and devilish philosophies; that they must do exactly what God made it to do and nothing else, then the glory of God will shine around the world and into the marches of unborn generations. Is it anything less than our duty to stand for the preservation and protection of the liberty that God loves and died for? The light of liberty must shine again!

What fundamental purpose do you have in relation to discussing a biblical nation?

For the last couple of years I have been struggling for freedom from a bondage to lust. I am now walking in victory by the grace of Christ, but it was not always that way. Up until my seventeenth birthday or thereabouts, I was a slave to rebellious pride. It took a mighty humbling by God for me to listen to the truths of Scripture and apply their life-giving principles to my life. In the process I dedicated my life to the helping of other young men to find liberty from lust, as well as other things. I discovered that political liberty is the same as righteous liberty, and I realized that my lifelong dream of starting a nation was actually included within the promise that I had made to God: and it was no idle promise. God has commanded us to be righteous, and I see no nation in this world that does not greatly choke out the liberty of God’s servants to do so. America used to be a nation that defended God’s liberty with blood and toil on its own and other nation’s soils, but it is no longer, and comfort and apathy have killed the well of its own liberty. Modern governments are a mockery of what God intended them to be, and I believe that it is the time to try changing that, or die trying (seriously: Christ Himself died to bring us liberty, how can we say that it is not a worthy cause to die for?). Even if I and the people who will help me don’t succeed, the effort, if it is a valiant one, will echo through the future and around the world to the glory of God. No matter what progress we make, if we stay on target, the world will be changed for the better. If every generation had fought for the cause of liberty as if they were starting a nation strictly based off of biblical principles, America would not be in the mess it is today. But the battle is the Lord’s, not ours, and so we can work knowing that He is on our side.

What methods do you consider important to implement for the furthering of that purpose?

A righteous banding together of believers of one mind who truly desire the furtherance of liberty, and thereby the gospel. The only way that any form of government can function efficiently is for the populace to be righteous. And so collaboration and banding together of biblically minded men and women of God is the most crucial aspect of any effort to defend liberty. Hence this forum: a very small, weak thing, but one which I hope will spark greater things.

What exact results do you look to see that will fulfill your purpose?

One thing that I realized is that the culture, economy, and society of a nation is entirely determined by the religion of the populace, the form of government, and any factors that affect the things that they need to do to survive. Such as, if there is no arable land, and there is plenty of fish, the government does not have to legislate that everybody fishes: the people will do it automatically. If it is cold, they will wear clothing that will reflect that (unless the government is extremely oppressive and they cannot afford it, in which case that would reflect the form of government). If the government does the grants and welfare, nobody else will be able to compete with it because the government is force. If the government does all the utilities, no one else will be able to, and if the government does not, a private organization must, even without being told to by the government: there is no other option. The point is that people are used to seeing governments doing certain things, and they don’t realize that the reason why private organizations are not able to do them right now is because the government is stopping them by doing them itself. So I envisage a government in which nothing is done by it except for what the Lord instituted it to do, totally relying on His wisdom, and not man’s.

Do we have the faith to stand against the world’s expectations? What are your thoughts?

With joy and peace in Christ,
Jay Lauser

The Definition of Crime

1 Peter 2:9 But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

I am not declaring these definitions to be universally binding, only that this is how I will be using them in this study. I will be using words that normally have broad meanings, but I will be using them here in a narrower capacity. I will define below the narrower meanings that I will be using in this Bible study.

Government: the organization of the civil magistrates. Also called the State, Ruler, etc. Basically, the government which punishes crime in a nation (as opposed to the government of the church, family, etc.). The fourth definition in Webster’s 1828 definition of government: “The system of polity in a state; that form of fundamental rules and principles by which a nation or state is governed, or by which individual members of a body politic are to regulate their social actions; a constitution, either written or unwritten, by which the rights and duties of citizens and public officers are prescribed and defined; as a monarchial government, or a republican government.”

Vertical sin: a sin whose punishment is predicated on the fact of its being against God. A sin that has as its principal object God. Some have called these sins “spiritual.” It is contrasted with “horizontal” sins. Of course, all sins are inevitably against God, whether indirectly or directly. But a vertical sin is mainly, if not exclusively, against God and no other. The punishment of a vertical sin is not because it is against or involves another human, but because it is an offense to God.

Horizontal sin: a sin that is mostly against mankind and his temporal extensions (his property and etc.). A sin that has as its principal object another human rather than God directly. Some have called these sins “temporal.” It is contrasted with vertical sins. Horizontal sins are always sins against either another person’s life, their liberty, their property, or against a contract with a person. The punishment of a horizontal sin is based on the injury done to another human being, not on the offense it is to God.

Crime: a sin which is in the jurisdiction of the government to punish. The whole purpose of this Bible study is to define crime, so as it progresses, more delimiting factors will be added to this definition of crime. Some people call heinous sins “crimes” whether or not they have anything to do with government. In this Bible study a crime is limited to a sin punishable by government.

Two Covenants

On mount Sinai, and in revelations following, God made and established a covenant with a nation. This covenant changed the course of that nation’s history, and the course of the world. Within it was the wisdom of God, speaking of things greatly to our profit. It spoke of the nature of God, and so commanded the respect of the nations on all sides of that blessed nation whom God had called His own: Israel. This covenant also spoke of our inherent depraved nature, and our need for redemption. It did not provide the answer to the problem that it revealed, however, but foretold the answer. It told of a new covenant, one that would be perfect, and which would create a new kind of nation, a nation which would transcend the world. This new covenant would replace the old one and bring in a new age of Godly wisdom and insight onto the mysteries of God.

But this first, great covenant bore with it a great responsibility.

Exodus 34:10-14 And he said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation: and all the people among which thou [art] shall see the work of the LORD: for it [is] a terrible thing that I will do with thee.
11 Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite.
12 Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee:
13 But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:
14 For
thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name [is] Jealous, [is] a jealous God:

23-26 Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which he made with you, and make you a graven image, [or] the likeness of any [thing,] which the LORD thy God hath forbidden thee.
24 For the LORD thy God [is] a consuming fire, [even] a jealous God.
25 When thou shalt beget children, and children’s children, and ye shall have remained long in the land, and shall corrupt [yourselves,] and make a graven image, [or] the likeness of any [thing,] and shall do evil in the sight of the LORD thy God, to provoke him to anger:
26 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye go over Jordan to possess it; ye shall not prolong [your] days upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed.

Deuteronomy 17:2-7 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant,
3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;
4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard [of it,] and inquired diligently, and, behold, [it be] true, [and] the thing certain, [that] such abomination is wrought in Israel:
5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, [even] that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; [but] at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.
7 The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.

The nation of Israel was promised great good if they hearkened to and obeyed the laws of God that He gave them through the covenant. But it was also required of them that they hold to no other God but the Lord. He gave them many laws that dealt with this. He also gave them laws that were shadows of the covenant that was to come: the covenant that would redeem them.

In this first covenant, the old covenant, God was intimately connected with its workings. He made the laws, organized the nation, commanded the order of the battles, guided the rulers, and in all respects was its King. Even during the monarchy He maintained this close connection, giving orders and judgments through His prophets. The entire Old Testament is full of accounts of His direct and visible working in the political realm of Israel. Although He ruled and reigned over all nations, and raised up and put down kings in other kingdoms, Israel was indubitably special.

Deuteronomy 4:5-9 Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it.
6 Keep therefore and do [them;] for this [is] your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation [is] a wise and understanding people.
7 For what nation [is there so] great, who [hath] God [so] nigh unto them, as the LORD our God [is] in all [things that] we call upon him [for?]
8 And what nation [is there so] great, that hath statutes and judgments [so] righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?
9 Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things which thine eyes have seen, and lest they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life: but teach them thy sons, and thy sons’ sons;

Deuteronomy 4:32-34 For ask now of the days that are past, which were before thee, since the day that God created man upon the earth, and [ask] from the one side of heaven unto the other, whether there hath been [any such thing] as this great thing [is,] or hath been heard like it?
33 Did [ever] people hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as thou hast heard, and live?
34 Or
hath God assayed to go [and] take him a nation from the midst of [another] nation, by temptations, by signs, and by wonders, and by war, and by a mighty hand, and by a stretched out arm, and by great terrors, according to all that the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes?

Although this covenant was a magnificent and glorious testimony among the nations for God, despite Israel’s frequent rebellions, it has come to an end. The long awaited and long sought for new covenant came with the death of Christ. There is now a new covenant that is perfect and without flaw. There is a heavenly kingdom of which we can all be a part, regardless of earthly nationality and heritage. This new covenant does not destroy the old, but rather fulfills it, for the old was there to herald and speak of the coming of the new. Every word and piece of the old covenant has a message for us in the new covenant, even if it is not directly applicable, it is figurative of some aspect of the new relationship we have with God.

Hebrews 8:5-13 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, [that] thou make all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the mount.
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of
a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7 For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10 For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
13 In that he saith,
A new [covenant,] he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away.

So what is the nature of this new covenant? What differences lie between the new and the old? What changes are made in our responsibility?

Hebrews 7:11-12 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need [was there] that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Hebrews 9:9-10 Which [was] a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
10 [Which stood] only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed [on them]
until the time of reformation.

Hebrews 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than [that of] Abel.

Colossians 1:17-22 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18 And
he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence.
19 For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell;
20 And,
having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say,] whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven.
21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in [your] mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled
22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

John 6:15 When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.

There has been a drastic change in the law. Not only in its effect on us, but in its nature. The day before Jesus’ death you were required to give sacrifices for your sins, the day after His death it was wrong to do so. This is only a case example: the differences were not limited to sacrifices and priests. The differences encompassed the very nature of God’s relation to government. His kingdom was not earthly, but heavenly. Because of these differences we cannot declare a sin to be a crime merely because it was a crime in the Mosaic Law. The Mosaic Covenant is not binding, and so cannot be used to justify requirements on government: it has other purposes, mainly illustrative. Even the Pentateuchal text itself clearly states that its laws were only for Israel, and for the purpose of making Israel a separate nation.

New Testament Definition of Crime

Romans 13:1-6
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore [ye] must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

This is an obvious passage to study when we are looking to the New Testament for the definition of crime. It has much insight at first glance, but the deeper I probe into its meaning, the more startling and profound are its revelations. Notice first of all the use of the word “evil” in the 3rd and 4th verses. This is a key word, and yet it has a very broad definition. Even the Greek gives little help in narrowing the scope of this word.

But notice the qualifying words that are seen in each instance: works, do, and doeth. These denote action, ruling out heart sins. We know that God considers even evil thoughts and intents of the heart to be sin, but we see from this passage, as we see from other passages also, that government is to have nothing to do with these heart matters. It can only punish actions. This is clear in both the English and the Greek: they both talk about actions done outwardly and even towards others in the Greek.

We know that the government is not to punish all evil actions. So we must determine what type of evil it is referring to from the context. Let us look at the preceding passage in Romans 12:

Romans 12:17-21
17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but [rather] give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance [is] mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

This is clearly a “horizontal” relationship passage, discussing how we ought to deal with our neighbors’ hurting us. We are not to avenge ourselves against wrongs done to us. This is clear. We are not to avenge ourselves against wrongs done to us because that is God’s job. We are to leave that to Him. “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” But notice chapter 13:4 “he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil.” Verse 19 directly pertains to our passage 13:1-6. Verse 17′s word “evil” is the same word used in chapter 13:3-4. This passage gives us a clear definition for the type of evil actions government is to punish with its sword: evil towards others. The civil magistrate is God’s delegated servant to execute punishment on what you would otherwise have executed vengeance on: wrongs done to you.

1 Peter 2:13-14
13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

A smaller passage, but just as meaningful. This clearly outlines the purpose of the civil magistrate: to punish evil-doers and praise well-doers. Notice the word “evildoers.” It specifically means (in the Greek) injurious. Its roots and other forms also mean injurious. It also refers to injury to others. So we have again what we had in Romans 12 & 13: crime (sins punishable by government) is an action that is injurious to other people.

1 Thess. 4:3-6
3 For this is the will of God, [even] your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:
4 That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;
5 Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God:
6 That no [man] go beyond and defraud his brother in [any] matter: because that the Lord [is] the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified.

This passage’s context is discussing specifically our behavior toward God and our walk of holiness and sanctification before Him. Then it contrasts this with a result of what happens if you fail to keep yourself pure. Notice where this happens in verse 6, “That no [man] go beyond and defraud his brother in [any] matter: because that the Lord [is] the avenger of all such.” Notice the word “avenger” is the same as in Romans 13, where we learned that the civil magistrate is God’s agent in carrying out just punishment on crime (avenge). This verse defines crime! “That no [man] go beyond and defraud his brother in [any] matter: because that the Lord [is] the avenger of all such” So what does it mean to “go beyond” and “defraud”? Just what it says. The Greek also includes the important concept that an attack on a person’s exclusive jurisdiction (private property, liberty, etc.) is an attack on him. So we have the extension of crime to a person’s liberty and property at least. Also again we have a separation between sin against God and crime against Man.

Because of the importance of the New Testament’s definition of crime, I will iterate here what we have learned, and what we can draw from that. I will use some of the Old Testament laws as examples to illustrate some obvious deductions, which is the proper use of those laws.

  1. Crimes are done, not thought. They are not necessarily acted, as a deliberate or careless refusal to act has the same denotations and consequences as an actual action.
  2. The punishments for crimes are based on the fact that they are towards other people, not towards animals or God. All sins are against God, but the punishment of the government is limited to that part of a sin that is against mankind. This is the principle of restitution, as separate from the principle of guilt towards God. If you sinned against another in the Mosaic Law, you had to pay restitution, and give an offering to God. The one was for the offense to man, the other for the offense to God. Government can only exact the former, the offense to man. Government only deals in restitution in the New Testament.
  3. Crimes are against another person. They are injurious to him in some way. An attempt at an injurious act is also a crime because although it might have been thwarted, it was against the other person. In the Old Testament we see and example of this deduction with the law of false witness. The false witness is not merely punished for the limiting of the accused liberty because of the trial, but for the accusation, what he had intended to do to the accused party. So restitution is required even if the attempt fails, though maybe not always in the full amount.
  4. Crimes are not limited to a person himself, but extends to his properties and liberties. A person has exclusive jurisdiction over his property, and to violate that exclusive right, is to violate himself. This extends to his liberty as well, as is required by logic and indicated by many laws in the Old Testament, including the kidnapping laws. Because of this, we can also add contract law, as that is a necessary extension of both property and liberty. To break a contract is to commit a crime against the other parties.
  5. It is not a crime to punish crime if you are delegated to punish crime. It is the government’s responsibility to punish crime, and to do so they must exact punishment, which itself falls into the category of actions that defines a crime. Criminal type actions can only be done by delegated government officials in punishment of proven crime. If a criminal type action is done without due process of law (however that is defined) then that action is a crime and needs to be punished as such.

So from this we may conclude the following definition of crime (keep in mind that government in the New Testament is limited to punishing crime and praising righteousness): a crime is a breach of contract with fellow men or a sin against a fellow man, which includes violations of his life, liberty, and property without due process of law.

We will need to continue our studies to discern whether things like adultery, divorce, striking/cursing/rebelling against your parents, usury, murder, immigration, threats, and etc. are crimes by this Biblical definition. We will also need to determine which crimes must always be in the government’s jurisdiction, which ones may be excluded from it by the decision of the offended parties, and etc. These must follow the hermeneutic principles outlined in this study of they are to be useful, however. We must study the Old Testament law to discern what punishments were given for what reasons, and then conclude how we ought to view these laws in light of the New Testament that we live in.

With joy and peace in Christ,
Jay Lauser

The Bible Study

Greetings,

I have been working on a large Bible study for a long time now. some of you know about it, and have even read pieces of it. I am nearing the last stages of the rough drafts. I am heading into editing. I want help with it, though. I am composing it right now with google docs and google sites. I would like feedback on it, so here is a link to it.

Please feel free to read it and give me feedback here or by email.

With joy and peace in Christ,

Jay Lauser

A Biblical View of Rights

This is a Bible study that I did for Liberty’s Light Forum.

Greetings,

I wanted to start saying what I think, but I decided to do a Bible study on how the Bible views the concept of ‘rights,’ in context with how the Founding Fathers viewed them. My results were very interesting and fascinating. God’s Word is indeed a treasure trove!

First off, I want to point out what I mean when I use the word ‘right’ in this context. The word has many different meanings and applications depending on context.

Webster’s 1828 dictionary in its 5th definition of ‘right’ in its noun form: Just claim; legal title; ownership; the legal power of exclusive possession and enjoyment. In hereditary monarchies, a right to the throne vests in the heir on the decease of the king. A deed vests the right of possession in the purchaser of land. Right and possession are very different things. We often have occasion to demand and sue for rights not in possession.

In simple, a ‘right’ is the noun of the adjective ‘right.’ Meaning that which it is right to do or have, and which it is wrong for someone to stop you from doing or having. Basically: a liberty.

But is this concept found in the Bible? Or is the idea of ‘rights’ only a modern semantic fallacy, and should be replaced with some other term like ‘responsibility.’ Surprisingly, when the Declaration of Independence stated that we “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” the Founders were squarely resting on the Bible.

There are several words in both the Greek and Hebrew that mean ‘right,’ which are translated as ‘right,’ and used in the same way that the Founding Fathers used the term ‘right’ in the Declaration of Independence. But I will only go into two of them.

Strongs Hebrew 4941
mishpat — mish-pawt’ — from 8199; properly, a verdict (favorable or unfavorable) pronounced judicially, especially a sentence or formal decree (human or [participant's] divine law, individual or collective), including the act, the place, the suit, the crime, and the penalty; abstractly, justice, including a participant’s right or privilege (statutory or customary), or even a style: — + adversary, ceremony, charge, X crime, custom, desert, determination, discretion, disposing, due, fashion, form, to be judged, judgment, just(-ice, -ly), (manner of) law(-ful), manner, measure, (due) order, ordinance, right, sentence, usest, X worthy, + wrong.

Many different applications of the word is used, but we can notice a couple things. 1) It is talking about a civil magisterial context and 2) it uses the terms ‘right’ and privilege’ in the definition. This is a civil liberty, as I stated above. A liberty which is to be recognized by the civil magistrate. A right.

This is used and translated in this sense many times.

Deuteronomy 21:17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated [for] the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he [is] the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn [is] his.

Psalms 9:4 For thou hast maintained my right and my cause; thou satest in the throne judging right.

Psalms 140:12 I know that the LORD will maintain the cause of the afflicted, [and] the right of the poor.

Isaiah 10:2 To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and [that] they may rob the fatherless!

Jeremiah 5:28 They are waxen fat, they shine: yea, they overpass the deeds of the wicked: they judge not the cause, the cause of the fatherless, yet they prosper; and the right of the needy do they not judge.

Jeremiah 32:7 Behold, Hanameel the son of Shallum thine uncle shall come unto thee, saying, Buy thee my field that [is] in Anathoth: for the right of redemption [is] thine to buy [it.]

Jeremiah 32:8 So Hanameel mine uncle’s son came to me in the court of the prison according to the word of the LORD, and said unto me, Buy my field, I pray thee, that [is] in Anathoth, which [is] in the country of Benjamin: for the right of inheritance [is] thine, and the redemption [is] thine; buy [it] for thyself. Then I knew that this [was] the word of the LORD.

Ezekiel 21:27 I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no [more,] until he come whose right it is; and I will give it [him.]

Malachi 3:5 And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in [his] wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger [from his right,] and fear not me, saith the LORD of hosts.

Now for the Greek word that I will study:

Strongs Greek 1849
exousia — ex-oo-see’-ah — from 1832 (in the sense of ability); privilege, i.e. (subjectively) force, capacity, competency, freedom, or (objectively) mastery (concretely, magistrate, superhuman, potentate, token of control), delegated influence: — authority, jurisdiction, liberty, power, right, strength.

This is even more clear in its delineation of a ‘right’ as a ‘liberty.’ It is translated as ‘right,’ ‘liberty,’ ‘power,’ and ‘authority.’ in the following selection of verses. Very clear.

Hebrews 13:10 We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.

1 Corinthians 8:9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.

Acts 5:4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

Luke 20:2 And spake unto him, saying, Tell us, by what authority doest thou these things? or who is he that gave thee this authority?

Now I want to clarify some things about how we ought to view our rights. There is a popular sermon among preachers that condemns the modern concept of rights and the constant griping about our ‘rights being infringed.’ Some preachers even go so far as to say that the whole concept of rights is wrong. This conclusion is obviously wrong as I have shown. But how should we view them?

Matthew 5:38-47 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have [thy] cloak also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more [than others?] do not even the publicans so?

Romans 12:17-21 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but [rather] give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance [is] mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

These two passages make it very clear that we ought not, as Christians to try to defend our own rights. We ought to suffer for Christ, and not complain, and show that our peace transcends our circumstances. However Romans 12:19, quoted above, gives us a clue about what place our rights ought to have. We must leave our rights up to God: but what then?

Romans 13:1-5 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore [ye] must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

The civil government is God’s minister to do the avenging that is mentioned in the previous passage! So it is the government’s responsibility to defend our rights (by punishing those who attack them, I.e. punish crime). So if we are a civil magistrate, or if we are discussing civil magistrates, we need to be discussing our rights. That is when we should be discussing our rights. Responsibility is the right term to use when looking at the government’s end of things: it is their responsibility to defend our rights, but rights is the right term to use as well when you are discussing our end of the government.

I hope that that assists us in semantic clarity.

With joy and peace in Christ,
Jay Lauser

Socialism vs. Communism

Communism: A form of socialism that abolishes private ownership; a political theory favoring collectivism in a classless society.

Socialism: A political theory advocating state ownership of industry; an economic system based on state ownership of capital. (from wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)

These are two very good definitions of socialism and communism. People have twisted the ideas of communism and socialism to hide their true faces from the public, whom they hope to seduce into slavery with both of these political traps. Communism is portrayed (though not always by that name) as perfect equality. Socialism is portrayed (though not always by that name) as government protecting and helping you because it can do it better than you. Meaning that it is superior to you. Which is different from what they say communism is, in fact, quite the opposite. They seem incompatible. But they are inseperable.

Imagine a classroom in which the teacher gives to every student the same grade, regardless of how they did on the test. That is communistic socialism. There is perceived equality, but notice that the teacher is separate from the class: socialism. The difference between socialism and communism is mostly just focus. Communism is the students each getting equal grades; socialism is the teacher overstepping his bounds and arbitrarily controlling the grades to match what he wants. Both are bad situations.

Watch out for sophistry. Especially in semantics.

The Bible and Crime

Greetings,

The Bible is my sole authority in these matters and everything must be Scripturally backed up. I am still in progress of a topical Bible study of the New Testament (hereafter designated NT) as it teaches on the nature of Scripture, the nature of the Old Testament (OT) and NT change that took place, the nature of crime, and the nature of government. I have gone through Matthew and John, and am going through Acts right now. I have also, in conjunction, been studying various passages that speak directly on government. There is a multitude of relevant Scriptures in the NT; much more than I realized.

What I am going to do first in this article is expound and exegete on at least three main passages in the NT, showing their meaning scripturally (in both the English and the Greek). I will then give several more passages and verses throughout the Bible which lend contextual support to these verses, and which assist in applying the principles found. I will apply these principles to the OT laws in the Pentateuch. Then I will then describe in summary what the principles are that we have found as well as what we need to do further research on. Assistance and support is welcome.

Romans 13:1-6

1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5 Wherefore [ye] must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

This is an obvious passage to study. And it has much insight at first glance, but the deeper I probe into its meaning, the more startling and profound are its revelations. Notice first of all the use of the word "evil" in the 3rd and 4th verses. This is a key word, yet the Greek simply uses just as broad a term as the English. We know that the purpose of government is, obviously, not to punish all evil. So we must determine the type of evil it is referring to from the context. Notice that there were not chapter headings in the original Greek, and so let us look at the preceding passage in Romans 12:

Romans 12:17-21

17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.

18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but [rather] give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance [is] mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

Notice verse 17′s use of the word "evil." It is the same word as used in 13:3 & 4. This passage gives us a clear definition contextually for the type of evil the civil magistrate is to punish with its sword: evil towards others. This is clearly a "horizontal" relationship passage, discussing how we ought to deal with our neighbors’ hurting us. We are not to avenge ourselves against wrongs done to us. This is clear. Notice how verse 19 directly pertains to our passage 13:1-6. We are not to avenge ourselves against wrongs done to us because that is God’s job. We are to leave that to Him. Notice the phrase used "vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." Now notice verse 4 of ch. 13: "he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil." The civil magistrate is God’s delegated servant to execute vengeance on what you would otherwise have executed vengeance on: wrongs done to you.

In support of this further, notice how the word "evil" is used in both cases in ch. 13: "…not a terror to good works, but to the evil", "if thou do that which is evil" and "…wrath upon him that doeth evil." These three words (works, do, and doeth) in the Greek and English all refer specifically to actions done outwardly, and the surrounding context declares that these outward actions are specifically against another person.

1 Peter 2:13-14

13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;

14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

A smaller passage, but just as meaningful. This clearly outlines the purpose of the civil magistrate: to punish evil-doers and praise well-doers. Notice the word "evildoers." It means (in the Greek) injurious, specifically. Its roots and other forms also mean injurious. It also implies or requires that its meaning includes injurious to others. So we have again what we had in Romans 12 & 13: crime (sins punishable by the civil magistrate) is an action that is injurious to other people.

1 Thess. 4:3-6

3 For this is the will of God, [even] your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:

4 That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;

5 Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God:

6 That no [man] go beyond and defraud his brother in [any] matter: because that the Lord [is] the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified.

This passage’s context is discussing specifically our behavior toward God and our walk of holiness and sanctification before Him. Then it contrasts this with a result of what happens if you fail to keep yourself pure. Notice where this happens in verse 6, "That no [man] go beyond and defraud his brother in [any] matter: because that the Lord [is] the avenger of all such." Notice the word "avenger" is the same as in Romans 13, where we learned that the civil magistrate is God’s agent in carrying out just punishment on crime (avenge). This verse defines crime! "That no [man] go beyond and defraud his brother in [any] matter: because that the Lord [is] the avenger of all such" So what does it mean to "go beyond" and "defraud"? Just what it says. The Greek in fact refers to an infraction of private property and person in both of these two words. Again we have a separation between sin against God and crime against Man. There is also support for private property and person (life) from this passage.

I want to point out now that every sin is against God. This is evidenced by David’s cry in Psalm 51:4. But there are some sins that are particularly against man, and others that have practically nothing to do with man. That is the distinction.

Here are several verses that give support to this definition of crime and add to it.

Romans 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love [is] the fulfilling of the law.

Notice that this is in the same context with Romans 12:17-21, 13:1-6.

Luke 3:14 And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse [any] falsely; and be content with your wages.

The specific duty of the civil magistrate is to not commit the very crimes that he must punish. The phrase “do violence” implies roughing up or intimidating: threatening.

1 Samuel 2:25 If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him: but if a man sin against the LORD, who shall entreat for him? Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the LORD would slay them.

The judge referred to is the civil magistrate slice of the Israel government. Notice the contrast between sins against God and sins against man.

Matthew 5:25-26 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

Another principle of crime: it must be brought to the civil magistrate before it is in the civil magistrate’s jurisdiction.

Matthew 5:38-42 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have [thy] cloak also.

41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

“An eye for an eye” and etc. were commands given to the civil magistrate in the OT, valid guides. This gives the same lesson as Romans 12:17-21, which is that “eye for an eye” avenging is the civil magistrate’s duty, not ours. Notice also that the sins listed are also crimes: against fellow men.

Matthew 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

16 But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican.

A nice progression of jurisdictions listed. An interesting thing is what you notice if you cross-reference this passage with 1 Cor. 6:1-8. Once a person is a “heathen man and a publican” to you it is the civil magistrate’s jurisdiction. This also again reinforces the fact that crime must be brought to the civil magistrate for it to be in his jurisdiction.

Matthew 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is,] God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,

19 Honour thy father and [thy] mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Jesus only gives those commands that deal with sins against your fellow men. This division is repeated many times, one of which occurs in Romans 13.

Matthew 22:36 Master, which [is] the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

God’s law is divided into two sections: horizontal (towards our fellow men) and vertical (towards God alone). This is reinforced here.

John 18:29 Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?

30 They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.

The Pharisees are trying to convince Pilate that the case is in his jurisdiction as civil magistrate. Although the Roman government was corrupt, it still tried to hold somewhat to their rightful role as civil magistrate (Acts 18:12-16).

1 Samuel 12:3 Behold, here I [am:] witness against me before the LORD, and before his anointed: whose ox have I taken? or whose ass have I taken? or whom have I defrauded? whom have I oppressed? or of whose hand have I received [any] bribe to blind mine eyes therewith? and I will restore it you.

14 And they said, Thou hast not defrauded us, nor oppressed us, neither hast thou taken ought of any man’s hand.

15 And he said unto them, The LORD [is] witness against you, and his anointed [is] witness this day, that ye have not found ought in my hand. And they answered, [He is] witness.

Notice that he is iterating his innocence of crimes. He is talking about how he did as a civil magistrate.

Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

The verse that institutes the office of civil magistrate in the first place describes crime as well: injurious to your fellow man.

Now this is the office of civil magistrate: to punish crime (which is an action or inaction that is injurious to another person and that is brought to the civil magistrate by the injured) and to praise righteousness. This is the Bible’s definition, and mine.

Now to apply this to the OT law. Our definition of crime eliminates many things that were sins in the OT that were punished as crimes, such as blasphemy and idolatry. These two are not ceremonial laws, but they are not crimes any more in the NT covenant and in the current office of civil magistrate. Why the difference? Now we get into another Bible study.

THEOC’RACY, n. [Gr. God, and power; to hold.] Government of a state by the immediate direction of God; or the state thus governed. Of this species the Israelites furnish an illustrious example. The theocracy lasted till the time of Saul.

That is our definition of theocracy. A government in which God plays a direct and active part in the ruling of. This is different from now, as will be shown.

I was going to try to list all of the times that God intervened directly on behalf of Israel either by a miracle, or by a sign given to them to follow, or by a direct guiding command, throughout all of Israel’s existence, but I found that I would be reprinting most of the OT from the Pentateuch all the way through to 2 Chronicles. There are many many verses giving direct support to this, though. God used prophets, visions, signs, miracles, direct guidance by voice or by presence, Urim and Thummim, and etc. throughout the days of Moses, the judges, and even into the reigns of the kings. David used the ephod (which was used as a miraculous oracle by which priests communicated directly with God) even before he was crowned king. The judges were moved by the Spirit of God and by direct verbal commands. The prophets gave military and civil counsel from the mouth of God to any king who would listen. Battles were planned by the mouth of God, as well as national cleansing, and rebuilding of the temple at various times. God had direct authority over Israel at all times that it was obedient to Him. When it rebelled, He gave it over into the hands of oppressors to teach them. This is the very definition of Theocracy, and it cannot be done today.

This is because Israel was a special nation, set apart from all others, and it cannot be repeated by us at our will. This is because God made Himself direct ruler of Israel. Man cannot force God into office. Only God has the ability to put Himself into direct office in the government, and He only did this in the case of Israel. Although it contained all that was necessary for a good civil government (it punished crime and praised well-doers), it also had many laws that were treated as crimes that cannot be treated as crimes today. Israel had many ceremonial laws, shadows of things to come (which were fulfilled by Christ’s death), but it also included functions of the church. So it included vertical sins as crimes, which it could do since it was a theocracy. God held a direct office in the government, and thus, these sins were offenses to the King of the nation. This is only possible in a theocracy. Our civil magistrates are the ministers of God in their office, not God Himself, as He was in Israel. Thus, these laws no longer apply to civil government’s jurisdiction. Vertical sins are still the jurisdiction of the Church, but the Church is no longer a part of the national government.

There is another thing that needs to be taken into account in defense of our limited definition of NT crime. Israel was a holy nation, set apart, so there were things that were not ceremonial and which they had to treat as crimes. But they are not now. God judges nations, and there are certain things which, if a nation embraces, He punishes. He either gives them over to oppression or exterminates them. These things are still operative today, and the result of a nation embracing them can still be observed in history. In Israel, these actions obviously had to be criminalized, but they cannot be now, even though the are still grievous sins. These are clearly labeled in the OT law: they are signaled by God defining its punishment as "to be cut off" and the reason for the law including the fact that the "nations before you" were destroyed because of it. These include adultery and similar sins like idolatry, etc. These ought to be handled differently than the other laws in the OT.

So all we have left (other than the obvious crimes like murder and theft) that need to be decided are four laws: cursing father or mother; striking father or mother; rebelling against father and mother; and adultery against another man’s wife (some of the laws dealing with adultery no longer apply since multiple wives is wrong anyways now).

I am inclined to think that adultery (the actual act) is a crime in the NT covenant criminal law.

I am also inclined to think that the other three are not. The reason being that, because Israel was a special nation, the "honor your father and your mother" commandment was more serious than otherwise.

An interesting note which might shed some light on the rebellious son law is that records show that no one ever used it. Ever. Everyone opted to not bring their son before the judge no matter how rebellious he was. This speaks volumes to us when we realize that the only one who did not spare His Son was God the Father, sacrificing His sinless Son for us. What we could not bring ourselves to do, He did for us. This lends an idea of a possible ceremonial element to this law, which might help us in determining its criminality now.

I hope that this helps. Let me know what you think.

With joy and peace in Christ,

Jay Lauser

Democracy

What They Said

_____

DEMOCRACY, n. [Gr. People, and to possess, to govern.] Government by the people; a form of government, in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in which the people exercise the powers of legislation. Such was the government of Athens.

“Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
–John Adams, letter to John Taylor, April 15, 1814

“The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty.”
–Fisher Ames, speech in the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, January 15, 1788

A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of “direct” expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic – negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogosm, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

-United States Army Training Manual No. 2000-25, 1928, p. 91.

Exodus 23:2 Thou shalt not follow a multitude to [do] evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest [judgment:]

What They Say Now

_____

Because the United Sates is a democracy, the majority of the people decide how our government will be organized and run – and that includes the Army, Navy, and Air Force. The people do this by electing representatives, and these men and women then carry out the wishes of the people.

-The Soldiers Guide, Department of the Army Field Manual, FM 21-13, June 1952, p. 69.
(these last two definitions were derived from “Foundations of Liberty: Our Glorious Republic” by the East Moline Christian School)

“A political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them” – wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

“The unconscious democracy of America is a very fine thing. It is a true and deep and instinctive assumption of the equality of citizens, which even voting and elections have not destroyed.” – G.K. Chesterton

What I Say

_____
There is quite a difference between our current day’s idea of democracy and the Founding Father’s idea of democracy. America is a Republic, not a democracy. We ought to strive to keep it that way. The sophistry of politically-correctness has permeated and destroyed much of our English language. We need to stand up for the right definitions of words, or be buried in endless debates of semantics.

Noah Webster and His 1828 Dictionary

Noah Webster and His 1828 Dictionary

“No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”

“All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.”

“The Bible must be considered as the great source of all the truth by which men are to be guided in government as well as in all social transactions.”

“The Bible is the Chief moral cause of all that is good, and the best corrector of all that is evil, in human society; the best book for regulating the temporal concerns of men, and the only book that can serve as an infallible guide.”

“The principles of genuine liberty, and of wise laws and administrations, are to be drawn from the Bible and sustained by its authority. The man, therefore, who weakens or destroys the divine authority of that Book may be accessory to all the public disorders which society is doomed to suffer.”

“It is the sincere desire of the writer that our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the bible, particularly the New Testament or the Christian religion.”

Quotes got from Thinkexist.com

These are all quotes from Noah Webster, one of the American Founding Fathers, and a devout Christian. His 1828 American Dictionary contained the greatest number of Biblical definitions given in any reference volume. He considered education “useless without the Bible”. He included the Bible in his researches for his definitions, unlike the modern dictionary makers with humanistic presuppositions. Webster claimed to have learned 20 different languages in finding definitions for which a particular word is used. All in all, I consider his 1828 dictionary to be one of the greatest literary works of America’s creation.

In addition to this, Webster was an active political leader in the Revolutionary war, and wrote many volumes of books and articles in that cause. He, with the other great founders, believed the Bible to be the ultimate source of authority, especially in the creating of a nation. This was the foundation for his political views. His 1828 dictionary reflected his vast political and biblical understanding, and is a powerful tool for any modern defender of liberty’s library. Thankfully, his 1828 dictionary and its 1913 revision are both public domain, and so are easily accessible on the web.

I use his dictionary as my standard in my biblical studies of government, as modern dictionaries are quite inadequate for my purpose. It is an invaluable aid in my quest for the truth about God’s desire for government systems. I will try to do an article on a word and its definition from his 1828 dictionary every day or so on this blog. So stay looking!

Importance of Understanding What a Biblical Nation Is

Here is an article that I wrote for Liberty’s Light.


Why should we even care about the Bible’s view of government’s responsibilities? Why should we care how it limits it? Why should we care what it requires of it? Why should we care that no nation on earth today obeys it? Why should we care at all about government?

If you have a true desire in your heart to serve God and obey His commands, you would not ask those questions without a sincere desire to find the answers. Those questions are asked in a rhetorical way only by those who deliberately blind themselves to God’s nature; by those who refuse to give God the honor and glory due to Him as the Master and Creator of the universe and everything in it; and by those who refuse to bow their lives to His Will and Way.

Those of us who desire to devote all areas of life to the rule of the Lord of Hosts say that nations and governments are to be held accountable in their actions to the Word of God. We decry the deplorable state of the world’s governments, and we do not balk at speaking out against their tyrannies. We seek to bring glory to God again in governments.

But people say that that is impossible; that reform of the nations is ridiculous; that we would waste our time and energy speaking out. We do not listen.

When David saw the blasphemies of Goliath and announced his intention to fight him, he was confronted with incredulity and assertions that it was impossible. His response echoes through time. Instead of defending the “possibility” of his intention, for he knew that it was impossible, he cried out “Is there not a cause?” That was what his focus was on: for he knew that if there was a cause, there was a way in the Lord of Hosts.

And now, looking at the state of the world today, I say, “Is there not a cause?” And there is a cause. When the light of liberty is dying, and those who profess to be of the bride of Christ are aiding and abetting its death by its silence, I say there is a cause.

When the lies that say that the Word of God is unable to touch the very institutions that God founded, church, family, and government holds the main sway of influence in the world, I say there is a cause.

When those who profess to be God’s children refuse to obey the clear commands of Scripture and stand on the inerrant nature and trustworthiness of the Word of God from its very first verse to its last in every area of life, including government, and thereby blaspheme the name of God, I say that there is a cause for us to rise up and give glory to God again.

If we strive to make it known that God did institute government, and that He does have a plan for how it ought to work: that nations ought to be based utterly on the fact that government is an institution of God and not of men; that they must be free of modern sophistry and devilish philosophies; that they must do exactly what God made it to do and nothing else, then the glory of God will shine around the world and into the marches of unborn generations. Is it anything less than our duty to stand for the preservation and protection of the liberty that God loves and died for? The light of liberty must shine again!

I have discovered that cause of political liberty is the same as the cause of righteous liberty, and I have realized that my lifelong dream of starting a nation was actually included within the promise that I have made to God to defend liberty: and it was no idle promise.

God has commanded us to be righteous, and I see no nation in this world that does not greatly choke out the liberty of God’s servants to do so. America used to be a nation that defended God’s liberty with blood and toil on its own and other nation’s soils; but it is no longer, and comfort and apathy have killed the well of its own liberty.

Modern governments are a mockery of what God intended them to be, and I believe that it is the time to try changing that, or die trying (seriously: Christ Himself died to bring us liberty, how can we say that it is not a worthy cause to die for?). Even if I and the people who will help me don’t succeed, the effort, if it is a valiant one, will echo through the future and around the world to the glory of God. No matter what progress we make, if we stay on target, the world will be changed for the better.

If every generation had fought for the cause of liberty as if they were starting a nation strictly based off of biblical principles, America would not be in the mess it is today. But the battle is the Lord’s, not ours, and so we can work knowing that He is on our side.

I believe that a righteous banding together of believers of one mind who truly desire the furtherance of liberty, and thereby the gospel, is the only thing that will be able to further this cause. The only way that any form of government can function efficiently is for the people to be righteous.

And so collaboration and banding together of biblically minded men and women of God is the most crucial aspect of any effort to defend liberty. Hence this blog and the sister forum: very small, weak things, but which I hope will spark greater things.

Do we have the faith to stand against the world’s expectations? Where do you stand?

With joy and peace in Christ,
Jay Lauser

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 423 other followers