This is from A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, by Samuel E. Waldron, pg. 296.

What do y'all think?

__________________


http://www.villagecommunitychurch.org/

I'm not even convinced that the two tables of the Law are a division between religious and civil law.

It could be that the two tablets are copies of each other. So that one copy would be for the Ark of the Covenant, and one copy for the people of God to read.

This was a common practice in making covenants. Each party of the covenant would be given a copy of the covenant.

__________________
Larry Bray
Elder - Reformed Presbyterian Church of Boothwyn, PCA
Boothwyn, PA - http://www.rpcb.org/
Free Online Reformed Seminary - http://www.tnars.net
-----------------------------------------------------
“The Christian must not be of such a complying nature as to cut the coat of his profession according to the fashion of the times…" - William Gurnall

As far as he goes Waldron is quite right in his first and second points. Although it is clear that Paul could not have expected the Roman government to address the religious evils arising from breaches of the first table, Paul's words here are a description of what was, not a statement of what should be the norm in a Christian state where a majority of voters are Christian. To such a situation, these verses do not directly speak. The idea that that civil rulers are never to punish religous evil is not necessarily precluded by this text.

Christian voters in modern states (especially if they are a majority or significant minority) need to ask themselves the following questions: how should they best apply the civil stipulations of both tables of the Old Testament law to their states in order to benefit from the wisdom of God therein contained? and second, how should they justify such applications? The answers must be found in other places in Scripture.

__________________
In Christ's love and service

Mr. Tim Cunningham, Dip. CS (Regent College)
Member, First Baptist Church
Vancouver, BC

------------
"The Reformation was a time when men went blind, staggering drunk because they had discovered, in the dusty basement of late medievalism, a whole cellar of 1500-year-old, 200 proof grace—a bottle after bottle of pure distillate of Scripture, one sip of which would convince anyone that God saves us single-handedly. The word of the gospel—after all these centuries of trying to lift yourself into heaven by worrying about the perfection of your own bootstraps—suddenly turned out to be a flat announcement that the saved were home-free before they started. Grace was to be drunk neat: no water, no ice, and certainly no ginger ale." – Robert Farrar Capon

1. The civil magistrate ought not to punish inward sins of the heart, but the bit about 'private evil' needs further clarification. Some sins can be committed in private which are nevertheless, or should be, crimes punishable by law. While privacy has some bearing on the appropriateness of government intervention, it is not an absolute bar to the compelling interest of the state in protecting the innocent or punishing the guilty. Abortion is one such example.

2. Calvin on Rom. 13.9: "It cannot be from this passage concluded what precepts are contained in the second table, for he subjoins at the end, and if there be any other precept He indeed omits the command respecting the honoring of parents; and it may seem strange, that what especially belonged to his subject should have been passed by. But what if he had left it out, lest he should obscure his argument? Though I dare not to affirm this, yet I see here nothing wanting to answer the purpose he had in view, which was to show, — that since God intended nothing else by all his commandments than to teach us the duty of love, we ought by all means to strive to perform it. And yet the uncontentious reader will readily acknowledge, that Paul intended to prove, by things of a like nature, that the import of the whole law is, that love towards one another ought to be exercised by us, and that what he left to be implied is to be understood, and that is, — that obedience to magistrates is not the least thing which tends to nourish peace, to preserve brotherly love."

3. Calvin again on the duty of magistrates to uphold piety and punish public impiety (Institutes 4.20.9):

__________________
Andrew Myers
Husband of Jessica, Father of Jackson, Katie and Samuel
Member, Presbyterian Reformed Church of Northern Virginia
Warrenton, VA USA
Editor, The Matthew Poole Project

"Let your Morning Thoughts, and your last Evening Thoughts, be what shall become of you to all Eternity." -- Matthew Poole

I am not sure I follow. What bearing does this have on the discussion?

Does Waldron define 'private evil' with the words, 'sins of the heart'? Or is it a theological term that I am not famiar with? Does 'private evil' means acting out sins with nobody watching?

If the idea that the law is divided into two tablets - one for religion and one for civil - is an invention not supported by Scripture or the historical context, then we shouldn't use that to defend the idea that only one tablet is civilly enforceable.

I would normally contrast 'private evil' with 'public evil'. Thus, like 'evil of the heart', 'private evil' is hidden from view and therefore seems to escape the purview of the magistrate's jurisdiction. I think this is what Waldron is saying, and therefore, I felt the need to clarify the point. My point is that government intervention in private matters must meet a certain threshold of compelling state interest, but should not be barred completely.

The apostle Paul's actions before the civil magistrate demonstrate clearly that he considered religious issues the domain of the powers that be:

Acts 25:7-11, "And when he was come, the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove. While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all. But Festus, willing to do the Jews a pleasure, answered Paul, and said, Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these things before me? Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar’s judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest. For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar."

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Is it possible, Rev Winzer, that Paul's actions simply demonstrate that he knew the Romans believed they had such jurisdiction and was subjecting himself to the powers that be? IOW, his actions prove his approval of subjecting to the higher powers and not necessarily an approval of the magistrates authority over religious matters.

I am aware that this discussion might deteriorate into a debate over WCF 23:3 and it is not my desire to do so.

This would have him appealing to an authority which had no authority; I can't see how that can be reconciled with the moral integrity of a servant of God.

Actually this passage is insufficient to prove that Paul considered religous issues should be the proper domain of the civil magistrate. For it appears that there were only one live issues at this point: the original charges, which were purely civil.

As civil rulers of Palestine, the Romans had jurisdiction over civil offenses such as riots. Paul had been originally arrested because he was at the centre of a riot he did not cause, and remained under arrest only because
a)the authorities learned of a plot against him and
b)he did not pay a bribe to the previous governor.

Although the Jews had brought other charges at this trial, Luke records that they could not prove them. These new accusations presented to the governor must have concerned alleged violations of Roman law, because, as Acts 18:14,15 tells us plainly, the Romans did not judge violations of Mosaic law in cases where the Roman law did not echo it. Since Paul had firsthand knowledge of the Roman refusal to judge Jewish religious questions, and since no religious questions could have been before the court, Paul's comment "Neither against the law of the Jews neither against the temple" need not be read as affirming anything more than a statement of Paul's total innocence under not just the Roman law but under Jewish law as well. Paul had very good reason to make such a claim at that moment: his innocence of wrongdoing under Jewish law as well as well as Roman, meant that he should have been immediately freed. Given how the trial seems to have progressed to this point, Paul may have anticipated that this new governor had more than justice affecting his decisions and may have been doing nothing more by his sentence than laying the groundwork for an appeal to Caesar in order to have the origianal civil charges dismissed if this trial did not result in his freedom.

Let me say, First, I actually think that the "two tablets" (Dt. 10:4) may well have been identical as to content (each containing all 10 words).

However, it is not unbiblical to speak of the "two tables" of the law. This language doesn't come from "tablets" (although that is certainly a convenient mnemonic), but from the notion of a "list"--as in "table of contents".

Where is the idea of "two lists" expressed? How about Jesus?
Mt.22:37-40

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. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Or take this list right out of Rom 13:9

For this, (7) Thou shalt not commit adultery, (6) Thou shalt not kill, (8) Thou shalt not steal, (9) Thou shalt not bear false witness, (10) Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Did you see how Paul takes the second half of the 10C and puts them under the 2nd Great Commandment?

Jesus again:
Mark 10:19

You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.'"

Mark alone of the three Synoptic gospellers includes the note "do not defraud." Is that a reference to the 10th? Whether or not, here is an instance of #5 being tacked onto the others for inclusion in this list or table of "loving one's neighbor" (compare with Mat 19:18-19).

I think that there is an inherent ambiguity, then, in "deciding" what absolutely should be in each of these lists or tables, precisely because it is something of a "construct." However, it is a "construct" that Jesus and the Apostles used, and they probably didn't invent it.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

The Roman government took away from the Jewish people the right to condemn to death. Since the death penalty is what is required for some of the "ecclesiastical" commands of God wouldn't this imply that Rome did, in fact, affect ecclesiastical judgment?

By restricting the death penalty to its governors and to violations of Roman law, Rome did affect the enforcement of various Mosaic stipulations. This may be seen in the trial of Christ. As Morison showed in "Who Moved the Stone?," it was easy to show that He was guilty of violating the Pharisaic understanding of torah, but how to prove him guilty of a death penalty offense that would be accepted under Roman law was a real problem.

Rev. Buchanan,

Do you believe that the government is only meant to uphold the "civil" portion of God's moral commands then? And if so, would that include honoring one's mother and father?

"May and "may" are speculations, and speculations are no basis for explaining away the plain sense of the words. The word used to describe Paul's "answer for himself" is a technical term which describes his defence against the complaints of the Jews. Hence it is natural to understand those official complaints to have contained the charge of offending against the law of the Jews and the temple. In relation to these charges he directly appealed to Caesar.