Toward an Understanding of the Judicial Law (Brian Schwertley)

Introduction:

The body of law given to Israel as a nation and as the visible expression of the church is covenant law and thus is unique. This makes it more difficult for modern Christians to properly analyze it and use it for today’s society. When we think of civil laws in a modern nation, we think strictly in terms of legal actions related essentially to political and criminal laws. We think of laws being broken that involve police action, law courts, judges and civil sanctions. While such things are part of the judicial law in Scripture, one must not restrict the judicial laws within the Mosaic code to the modern conception. In this section, we are going to look at a number of things related to the moral case laws in an attempt to have a better understanding of biblical law and how we can use these moral laws today.

Continue reading here

A Reformed View of the Old Testament Judicial Law (Brian Schwertley)

Exodus 22:25-27: Law, Money & Economics (Paul Michael Raymond)

The Case Laws Continued: Exodus 22:1-24 (Paul Michael Raymond)

Laws Concerning Bodily Injury (Paul Michael Raymond)

Life, Death, Justice & Liberty (Exodus 21:12-21) (Paul Michael Raymond)

The Law is Good: A Defence of Judicial Calvinism (by Daniel F. N. Ritchie)

Read Matthew Poole's Commentaries Online

Commentaries by Matthew Poole, one of the most respected historical Reformed commentators, can be read online and downloaded for free at Google Books. 

Poole's commentaries can be helpful for researching Scripture in general, and biblical law in particular.

Annotations upon the Holy Bible: Volume One 
(Genesis through Job)

Annotations upon the Holy Bible: Volume Two
(Psalms through Malachi)

Annotations upon the Holy Bible: Volume Three
(Matthew through Revelation)


     

Case Law Commentary: The Levirate Marriage (Deuteronomy 25:5, 6)

"[T]he reason of the law may seem to ...
keep up the distinction, as of tribes and
families, that so the Messias might be
discovered by the family from which he
was appointed to proceed, so also of
inheritances, which were divided among
all the brethren, the first born having only
a double portion." --Matthew Poole

In this case law commentary, theologians weigh in on the Levirate Marriage, as discussed in Deut. 25:5, 6.

Deuteronomy 25:5, 6: 

"If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel."

John Gill:

Ver. 5. If brethren dwell together,.... Not only in the same country, province, town, or city, but in the same house; such who had been from their youth brought up together in their father's house, and now one of them being married, as the case put supposes, they that were unmarried might live with him, and especially if the father was dead; and so may except such as were abroad, and in foreign countries, or at such a distance that this law coals not well be observed by them; though the Targum of Jonathan, and so Jarchi, interpret it of their being united in an inheritance, all by virtue of relation having a claim to their father's inheritance; so that it mattered not where they dwelt, it is the relation that is regarded, and their right of inheritance; and the above Targum describes them as brethren on the father's side, and so Jarchi says excepts his brother on the mother's side; for brethren by the mother's side, in case of inheritance, and the marrying of a brother's wife, were not reckoned brethren, as Maimonides {h} observes; who adds, that there is no brotherhood but on the father's side. Some think that when there were no brethren in a strict and proper sense, the near kinsmen, sometimes called brethren, were to do the office here enjoined, and which they conclude from the case of Boaz and Ruth; but Aben Ezra contradicts this, and says that instance is no proof of it, it respecting another affair, not marriage, but redemption; and says that brethren, absolutely and strictly speaking are here meant; which is agreeably to their tradition {i}: ...

her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife; that is, supposing him to be unmarried, and this is indeed supposed in the first clause of the text, by dwelling with his brother; for had he been married, he would have dwelt with his wife and family apart; besides, if this law obliged a married man to marry his brother's wife, polygamy would be required and established by a law of God, which was never otherwise than permitted. This is to be understood of the eldest brother, as Jarchi, who is in an unmarried state; so it is said in the Misnah {k},

"the command is upon the eldest to marry his brother's wife; if he will not, they go to all the brethren; if they will not, they return to the eldest; and say to him, upon thee is the commandment, either allow the shoe to be plucked off, or marry;'' 

and such a course we find was taken among the Jews in our Lord's time, Mt 22:25;

John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

The Geneva Bible:

25:5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husbands brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husbands brother unto her. 

(d) Because the Hebrew word does not signify the natural brother, and the word that signifies a brother, is taken also for a kinsman: it seems that it does not mean that the natural brother should marry his brothers wife, but some other kindred that was in the degree that might marry. 

Geneva Study Bible

Matthew Poole

If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.  

Brethren; strictly so called, as is evident from ver. 7 ; Gen. xxxviii. 8; Ruth i. 13 ; Matt. xxii. 24, 25. Dwell together; either, 1. Strictly, in the same house or family; which is not probable, because the married brother may be presumed to have left his father's house, and set up a family of his own. Or, 2. More largely, in the same town or city, or, at least, country. This is added for a relief of their consciences, that if the next brother had removed his habitation into remote parts, or were carried thither into captivity, which God foresaw would be their case, then the wife of the dead had her liberty to marry to the next kinsman that lived in the same place with her. 

One of them ; either, 

1. The first and eldest of them, as it was practised, Gen. xxxviii. 6, &c., and expounded, Matt. xxii. 25; one being oft put for the first, as Gen. i. 5 ; i. 11 [?]; Hag. i. 1; Mark xvi. 2. And the chief care was about the first-born, who were invested with singular privileges, and were types of Christ. Or, 2. Any of them, for the words are general, and so the practice may seem to have been, Ruth iii.; and the reason of the law may seem to be in a great measure the same, which was to keep up the distinction, as of tribes and families, that so the Messias might be discovered by the family from which he was appointed to proceed, so also of inheritances, which were divided among all the brethren, the first-born having only a double portion.

Have no child, Heb. no son. But son is oft put for any child, male or female, both in Scripture and other authors; and therefore the Hebrew no son is rendered no child here, as it is in effect, Matt. xxii. 24; Mark xii. 19 ; Luke xx. 28. And indeed this caution was not necessary when there was a daughter, whose child might be adopted into the name and family of its grandfather. Unto a stranger, i. e. to one of another family, as that word is oft used. Her husband's brother shall go in unto her, except he was married himself, as may appear by other scriptures, and by the reason of the thing, and, as some add, from the phrase of dwelling together, to wit, in their father's family.

6 And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall [Gen. 38:9] succeed  in the name of his brother which is dead, that his [Ruth 4:10] name be not put out of Israel. 

In the name of his brother; shall be called and reputed his son. See Ruth iv. 17. That his name be not put out of Israel; that a family be not lost. So this was a provision that the number of Iheir families might not be diminished.

Matthew Poole, Annotations upon the Holy Bible, p. 385

The Judicial Laws as the Standard for Determining Criminal Punishments (Rev. Thomas Houston)

"It is the penal code of heaven
--the rule by which alone, as
far as human society is
concerned we can measure
the magnitude of the crime
committed, and the proper
award of punishment which
it merits."
--Rev. Thomas Houston

The following quote was originally posted by Daniel F. N. Ritchie at the Confessional Puritan Board. Given in 1832 by the Rev. Thomas Houston, this quote persuasively argues that if we are to properly punish crimes against God's moral law, then we must base those punishments on the judicial law. 

4. Devising and executing wholesome laws. 

Just laws are themselves effective and powerful instruments for promoting the peace and prosperity, the present and future welfare of a community. The Christian Magistrate, by the authority of law, will seek to compass the objects of his appointment, and fulfil the responsibility attached to his office. The protection he extends to the Church must be legal protection. No such sanction must he ever give to the idolater, or to him who teaches lies in the name of the Lord. One eminent advantage the Magistrate, who takes the Divine law as the basis of his government, and who thus who are guided by mere human prudence or expediency in their measures. He has an unerring standard to which he can refer – an immutable and solid foundation, on which he may build with perfect safety. 

On this ground we plead, that the Christian Civil Magistrate should make the Divine law the grand instrument for advancing the interests of religion, and reaching the other high ends of his appointment. Were it required, I might insist further on that has been elsewhere advanced – that the Judicial law, in those parts of it that were not peculiar to the Jewish polity, forms the grand directory to the Christian Magistrate in the exercise of that part of his authority that respects the establishment of true religion, and its defence against the inroads of idolatry, blasphemy, and heresy.  

The moral law defines and declares the crime, but says nothing of the punishment. The Judicial law is the fence that God himself set round the precepts of the Decalogue, which are of universal obligation. It is the penal code of heaven – the rule by which alone, as far as human society is concerned we can measure the magnitude of the crime committed, [p. 90] and the proper award of punishment which it merits. Consider it entirely abrogated, and then, as far as related to the Civil Magistrate, the sanction of the Decalogue is removed. He has a sword still, but he is without directions how he may use it. Like a mariner without a compass, he is afloat on a sea of uncertainties, ready at every moment to be swallowed up by the tempestuous billows, or to be dashed to pieces of the rocks and quicksands that threaten his destruction. But the Christian Magistrate is not appointed God’s minister, and left thus without directions in performing the functions of his arduous office. His duty is clearly and minutely declared in their words of Him who is without variableness and shadow of turning, and whose law, like himself, is unchangeable. With this divine instrument in his hand, he has nothing to fear. Let him apply it faithfully, and leave the consequences with God. Then will his administration be crowned with success, and God’s glory and man’s good will be extensively promoted. 

Thomas Houston, The Christian magistrate: a discourse, with an appendix (Belfast: Stuart & Gregg, 1832), pp 90-1.

   

Does Scripture Repeal the Case Laws?

by Greg L. Bahnsen

(Excerpt from No Other Standard: Theonomy and its Critics)

Some non-theonomists have tried to show that the New Testament sets aside the case laws of the Old Testament. Two recurring problems attend these efforts. First, appeal is sometimes made to texts which do not allude to or pertain to the case laws whatsoever. For instance, appeal is made to Colossians 2:14 and to Ephesians 2:15 by critics of theonomy.[1] These verses have nothing particularly to do with the Old Testament case (judicial) laws, though. Colossians 2:14 deals with the condemning function of the law, while Ephesians 2:15 refers in particular to the ceremonial category of laws which erected a wall of separation between Jews and Gentiles. [Walter] Chantry[2] appeals to Ephesians 2:15 as evidence that the judicial laws “shut out the rest of the world from faith,” but this is extravagant. The requirement of a rooftop railing and the prohibition of rape (just to take two examples) did absolutely nothing to bar the Gentiles from coming to faith. It is not the civil regulations of the Jewish commonwealth which built a wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles. After all, Gentile aliens existed within the land of Israel and even came to saving faith. Moreover, the laws revealed by Moses for the commonwealth were intended to be a model for surrounding Gentile nations (Deut. 4:5-8). Chantry is thus wrong to think Paul was alluding to the judicial laws in Ephesians 2:15. Paul speaks of “the law of commandments in ordinances” which erect a wall between Jews and Gentiles.

God had revealed to the Jews the way of salvation, found in the foreshadows of the ceremonial law (sacrifice, temple, etc.). That law also contained outward signs of separation horn the unbelieving world, such as the dietary separation of clean from unclean meats (Lev. 20:22-26). With the coming of Christ, these ceremonial means of redemption have been made inoperative (Heb. 8:13), and the symbols of separation have been laid aside (Acts 10:11-15). It was the self-sacrifice of Christ which removed these laws that placed a partition between Jews and Gentiles (Eph. 2:14-15), thus bringing both groups into one saved body on an equal footing. Paul’s teaching in Ephesians 2:15 has nothing whatsoever to do with Israel as a political body or with the judicial laws of the Old Testament.

In the second place, if the critics were correct in their appeal to these passages, and if these passages pertain to the law itself (without discrimination), then the critics would be reduced to absurdity – proving far, far more than they intended. Such passages would then prove that the entire law of God has passed away (including the ten commandments), leaving us a moral code that no longer prohibits blasphemy, bestiality, cruelty to the blind, etc. (since they are not forbidden in the text of the New Testament).

Greg L. Bahnsen, No Other Standard: Theonomy and its Critics (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1991), 102-104. Available for free download at I.C.E. Freebooks.

---

     [1] E.g., D. Dunkerley, “What is Theonomy?’ (privately distributed: McIlwain Memorial Presbyterian Church, Pensacola, Florida, 1978), p. 2; Robert Strong, Theonomy Expanded Observations” (distributed from Reformed Theological Seminary, 1978), p. 4.  

     [2] Walter Chantry, God’s Righteous Kingdom (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1980), pp. 117, 118, 121.

     

Distinguishing between Judicial Laws

by Daniel F. N. Ritchie

Reformed Worldview Books    

How do we distinguish between judicial (socio-political) laws in the Bible? In the early Reformed and modern Theonomic writings there are various useful suggestions (I won't repeat them all here), which are fine as generalisations, but perhaps not entirely sufficient. However, allow me to make the following suggestion (largely based on recent reading of Daniel Cawdrey, Herbert Palmer and John Owen):

1. Simply moral: these are laws which are purely and simply moral laws, such as the death penalty for murder or the prohibition on bestiality. Such laws simply forever bind all. 

2. Moral-positive: these laws are in substance moral, but have circumstantial aspects. These continue to bind us according to their marrow, but they do not bind us any further than the general equity thereof may require. The Deut. 22:8 case law is an example of this.

3. Ceremonial-positive: these laws are either ceremonial in nature or entirely unique to Israel, they have either been abrogated or completely died out with Israel's expiration.

This piece was originally posted on the Confessional Puritan Board