Common Grace and the Mosaic Law

By Misty Irons

9/17/03

(My response to questions from Mr. K--)

> Given--for the sake of the argument--the perspective of the "common

> grace covenant" wherein God holds even pagan governments responsible

> to promote the general welfare of it citizenry...

>

> Maybe I am lacking in my understanding of the common grace covenant.

> I was not taught such a concept in seminary--even by Dr. Kline.

Maybe it would be helpful at this point to explain my understanding of common grace, and from there explain how I believe it relates to pagan governments and the Mosaic law.

After the Fall, God could have brought final judgment upon Adam, Eve and the entire creation, destroying everything he had created. Instead God chose to implement a plan of redemption by which he would save his chosen people, a remnant out of fallen humanity, via the coming of Christ (Genesis 3:15). However, shortly after this promise of redemption was made in Genesis 3, the immediate problem surfaced of how to ensure the survival of the human race, especially since mankind’s depravity would eventually provoke God to judge and destroy humanity before adequate time elapsed to bring his plan of redemption to fruition. This was the point of the story of Noah’s ark and the Flood, when God was provoked to destroy all living beings except for Noah and his family, because of the exceeding wickedness of mankind.

Hence, subsequent to the Flood, God made what you referred to as the “Common Grace Covenant,” in which he promised by the sign of a bow in the cloud that he would never again flood the earth on account of man’s wickedness (Gen. 8:20-9:17). “I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done” (Gen. 8:21). Here it seems to me God is acknowledging that it is because “man’s heart is evil from his youth” that he must make this pledge. Otherwise he would continually be compelled to wipe the slate clean and start the human race over as he did with Noah, and then the plan of redemption could never get off the ground. The gracious benevolence by which God places this restraint upon himself in the face of human evil, by which he also acts to restrain the breadth and depth of sin itself, is called common grace. It is not a saving grace reserved only for the elect, but rather a grace that abounds to all men regardless of whether they are within or without the covenant community; hence it is referred to as “common grace.”

Louis Berkof defines common grace as encompassing two main aspects: “a) those general operations of the Holy Spirit whereby He, without renewing the heart, exercises such a moral influence on man through His general or special revelation, that sin is restrained, order is maintained in social life, and civil righteousness is promoted; or, b) those general blessings, such as rain and sunshine, food and drink, clothing and shelter, which God imparts to all men indiscriminately where and in what measure it seems good to Him.” (Systematic Theology, p. 436)                                             

Regarding the means by which “order is maintained in social life” (see “a” above), Berkof points to the institution of “Governments” (p. 441). Notice that the civil government’s function of maintaining social order can also be seen as one of the “general blessings...which God imparts to all men indiscriminately” (see “b” above) so that their persons and property are protected from criminals and other evildoers in society.

Kline concurs with Berkof. He teaches that one of the functions of the Noahic Covenant was the establishment of the institution of civil government for the purpose of restraining sin in God’s pronouncement that “whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God he made man” (Gen. 9:6). By decreeing capital punishment for all those who shed the blood of fellow human beings, God makes it necessary for human beings to establish an authoritative institution to carry out this punishment on behalf of society, hence the origin of civil government. As Noah’s descendents multiply on the earth, for the first time in the Bible we see the mention of “nations” (Gen. 10:5, 20, 31, 32) and later “kings” in Gen. 14, which suggest that this is a correct interpretation of 9:6. Civil government instills in men a fear of punishment, and also nips the spread of human depravity in the bud by executing those who become a threat to society by daring to shed the blood of their fellows.

It is important to note that when the apostle Paul writes that the ruler is “a minister of God to thee for good” (Rom. 13:4), he is speaking of both pagan and Christian rulers without distinction. It is a fact that the Roman Christians to whom Paul wrote in his day were under pagan rule. Furthermore, the Roman government of Paul’s day not only promoted the worship of the Emperor and tolerated the existence of myriads of pagan religions in the land, but every kind of sexual sin including homosexuality was rampant in Roman society. Homosexuality was not restrained by Roman law, and yet Paul teaches the Roman Christians that their government was fulfilling its function as “a minister of God to thee for good” because it faithfully executed its God-ordained task of being “an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil” (v. 4c). So it is clear that “evil” refers only to certain kinds of crimes, not all sin in general. It was under these circumstances that Paul commanded the Roman Christians to “be in subjection to the governing authorities” (v. 1), and to regard such authority properly as “a minister of God.”

With the exception of the theocracy of Israel, we see examples of submissive and respectful behavior in God’s people toward pagan authority throughout redemptive history. Joseph faithfully served his master Potiphar, then the chief jailer, and finally Pharaoh, and God blessed him in all these endeavors particularly because he persevered in his good behavior despite suffering many injustices. God prospered Daniel who served a succession of pagan kings while in captivity in Babylon, and likewise blessed his friends Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego. God used Esther’s submission to King Ahasuerus in Susa to save the Jewish people from genocide. In the New Testament Jesus taught “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” when the Pharisees challenged him on whether it was lawful to submit to the poll tax of the Roman government (Matt. 22:15-22). 1 Peter 2:13-17 concurs:

Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governers as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. Honor all men; love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.

Saints of the OT and the NT submitted respectfully to the government and honored its authority because they recognized in it God’s common grace purpose of keeping order in society. Neither Jesus nor the apostles teach that they require that such institutions uphold Christian values in order to submit to them or support them. They are merely human institutions, a part of the world that is passing away, whose purpose is to regulate the affairs of the world, not to make theological judgments or ensure universal obedience to the entire moral law. We see this illustrated in Acts 18:12-16 when the Jews, who believed that Paul was a blasphemer and a transgressor of the Mosaic Law, brought him before Gallio the proconsul of Achaia:

[The Jews] brought him before the judgment seat, saying, ‘This man persuades men to worship God contrary to the law.’ But when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, ‘If it were a matter of wrong or of vicious crime, O Jews, it would be reasonable for me to put up with you; but if there are questions about words and names and your own law, look after it yourselves; I am unwilling to be a judge of these matters.’ And he drove them away from the judgment seat.

If someone were wronged or if someone committed a crime, Gallio said, then the governing authority may judge. But since it was about the Mosaic law, he wisely told the Jews to look after it themselves. Questions about the Mosaic law belonged in the synagogues and to the religious community that embraced it. They had no place before the judgment seat of a civil servant such as Gallio.

> 1) why would you as a believer not be guided by even the general equity

> of the decalogue to know that homosexual behavior is inimical to the

> general welfare?

According to WCF 19:4 general equity applies to the judicial law and not the decalogue, and according to Larger Catechism #139 homosexual behavior belongs under the seventh commandment. So wrt your question I do not see where the decalogue teaches homosexual behavior is inimical to the general welfare.

If you mean that the Mosaic law teaches that homosexual behavior was a threat to the well being of the theocracy of Israel, and that we in American society should take heed to the warnings of the Mosaic law in the similar way as the Israelites did, here is why I do not agree. In the theocracy of Israel, homosexual behavior would have been inimical to the general welfare in the sense that God would have brought judgment and exile to the Israelites if they failed to put the guilty parties to death (Lev. 20:13). It would be worth noting other sins listed in Lev. 20 that deserved death: human sacrifice to a false god (v. 2), cursing one’s father or mother (v. 9), adultery (v. 10), mother-son or father-daughter incest (vv. 11, 12, 14) and bestiality (v. 15, 16). Of those that deserved exile: spiritism (v. 6), brother-sister incest (vv. 17-18), and intercourse during menstrual flow (v. 18). These are just the sins that are listed in Lev. 20 alone.

Homosexual behavior, like human sacrifice, spiritism, adultery, incest, bestiality and cursing one’s parents, was “inimical to the general welfare” of Israel because such practices would have defiled the land, the sanctuary, the covenant community, and God’s holy name, and the consequences would be exile for the Israelites if they did not put such offenders to death. For God told the Israelites at Mount Sinai, “You shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation”(Exodus 19:6). As a “holy nation” that was obligated to “consecrate [themselves]...and be holy” (Lev. 20:7) it was necessary to exterminate idolaters, adulterers, sodomites, practicers of incest and rebellious children because the land was God’s dwelling place, his holy tabernacle. “I will also set My face against that man and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given some of his offspring to Molech, so as to defile My sanctuary and to profane My holy name” (Lev. 20:3). “I will also set My face against that [spiritist] and will cut him off from among his people. You shall consecrate yourselves therefore and be holy, for I am the LORD your God” (Lev. 20: 6-7). “Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I the LORD am holy; and I have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine” (Lev. 20:26).

To give a parallel example, a priest who offers strange fire and defiles God’s holy tabernacle must die, as Nadab and Abihu did (Lev. 10:1-3). Defiling the sanctuary was inimical to the general welfare of Israel because after Nadab and Abihu were destroyed, God’s wrath threatened to devour the congregation too (10:6) had not proper atonement been made. It is in that sense that I agree that homosexual behavior, among other sins, threatened the general welfare of Israel.

But the difficulty with trying to carry over an application of these theocratic laws into American society is that America is not God’s holy nation. Unlike the land of Canaan, the land of America is not a sanctuary where the glory of the LORD dwells. By “glory of the LORD” I am not making a general reference to the omnipotent glory of God over his creation, but to the visible presence of God in a cloud of glory that signals to the people of God that a designed place is holy.

Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle. And Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting because the cloud had settled on it, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle. (Exodus 40:34-35)

And it came about when the priests came from the holy place, that the cloud filled the house of the LORD, so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud, for the glory of the LORD filled the house of the LORD. (1 Kings 8:10-11)

For America to be God’s holy nation, God must enter into a covenant with the people of America via a prophet, accompanied by signs and miracles to verify that the prophet is indeed a prophet of the LORD. There must be a temple set up by the command of God himself, perhaps in Washington, D.C., and God must come and dwell as a cloud of glory in that temple. America would be a holy nation and the people of America must consecrate themselves to Jehovah, hence, there must be no idolatry at all in the land. Idolaters must be dealt with as King Josiah dealt with those of his day:

“And all the priests of the high places who were there, he slaughtered on the altars and burned human bones on them.” (2 Kings 23:20)

That means Buddhists, Muslims, Roman Catholics, Hindus, New Agers, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the millions of followers of other cults and sects in this country would have to be either executed or exiled, and their property destroyed. Furthermore there would have to be a way of deciding which Christian denominations, in their wide spectrum of liberalism vs. conservatism, should be included in the list of holy vs. profane. One would have to decide, for instance, whether idolatrous practice exists in the Lutherans’ view of the sacraments, or in the charismatics’ view of the gifts. Such questions will decide whether certain ministers may be allowed to live or face the death penalty, whether some professing Christians may live in peace or be expelled from their homes and exiled to a foreign land.

Along with idolaters, every American who has committed adultery must be executed. By the Bible’s definition, this includes anyone who has had an unlawful divorce (on the grounds of, say, irreconcilable differences) and gotten remarried. Children who curse their parents must also face the death penalty. And of course practicers of sodomy, bestiality and incest would also be put to death. The purpose of these executions would be to keep the land of America holy and undefiled, lest the glory cloud of the LORD withdraw from the temple and a covenant curse is pronounced upon the nation.

Now let’s acknowledge that America is not God’s holy nation, that the land of America is not a holy dwelling place of the LORD, that God has not entered into a covenant with America through a mediating prophet, etc. Perhaps someone might say that a softer, less severe form of the Mosaic civil law should still be carried over and applied by the civil government of today, that idolaters, spiritists, adulterers, rebellious children, committers of incest, practicers of bestiality and homosexual practicers should all be punished in some way-- perhaps they should be fined or incarcerated or forced to enter a rehab program.

The first problem is that if we are trying to preserve America as a Christian nation and if we believe that we as a nation must try to attain to a level of obedience that would prevent the judgment of God coming upon our society, none of the softer penalties can adequately turn away such judgment, particularly a soft treatment of idolatry. By far idolatry was the most offensive sin in God’s sight throughout the time of Israel. The failure of even the most righteous kings of Judah, who were more godly than the kings of Israel, were centered around the half-measures they took with regard to dealing with idolatry in the land. The refrain “yet the high places were not taken away; the people still sacrificed and burned incense on the high places” appears in 1 Kings 22:43 and 2 Kings 12:3, 14:4, 15:4, 15:35 (see also 1 Kings 15:14). All these citations are indictments of kings who generally “did what was right in the sight of the LORD” yet their disobedience in the area of tolerating idolatry was noted every time, culminating in God’s ultimate judgment upon the people.

God is holy, and if one is seeking to turn away his judgment no half-measure of merely incarcerating or fining (or whatever the lesser penalty may be) idolaters will adequately appease his wrath. If one believes that God will judge a nation based on that nation’s obedience to God’s laws then one must execute idolaters as King Josiah did, and certainly not tolerate the high places as Kings Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoash, Amaziah, Azariah and Jotham did.

The second problem with trying to use the nation of Israel as a model for the purpose of promoting righteousness in the land is that the whole point of the theocracy of Israel was that it utterly failed in achieving righteousness. Again, the whole point was its failure. Israel was judged and exiled. The temple was desecrated and destroyed. King Zedekiah’s eyes were put out as he was led away in fetters to Babylon. If anything, the one lesson we can come away with is what not to do if you want a nation to achieve righteousness. This is no accident. God wants us to conclude that the revelation of his holy law only exacerbated Israel’s sin. Indeed “the Law came in that the transgression might increase.” (Romans 5:20) Why does transgression increase because of the adding of the law? Because even though the law itself is good (Rom. 7:16) the flesh is corrupt and cannot respond except to practice evil (Rom. 7:18-19). “For what the law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh...” (Rom. 8:3). In Israel’s case they could not respond positively to the law even though they had experienced the saving arm of the LORD in their lives. What chance is there that the unregenerate in our society today could do any better?

Let’s say someone were to respond, “It’s true that the unregenerate wouldn’t be able to respond with obedience. But the giving of the law would serve the purpose of showing them their sin and leading them to Christ.” My response is, if you wish to show men their sin so as to lead them to Christ, then preach the law to them from the pulpits, or out on the streets, or through your godly example to them as friends and neighbors. Convict them in their consciences so that of their own accord they would despair of themselves and seek Christ out of true spiritual need. Then take them to church and disciple them in the way of the cross so that they may know the hope and the joy of salvation.

But how can people be convicted of their need of Christ if Christians approach them from the high place of civil authority, threatening them with fines or arrest warrants or exile if they are seen visiting a mosque or participating in a yoga class? Instead of their eyes being drawn inwardly and their thoughts upward to heaven in solemn contemplation of God’s judgment upon them in the afterlife, their sights become set on the things of this earth, how they might defend their freedom and their livelihood from an encroaching human authority. Instead of viewing himself as a transgressor of God’s heavenly law, the unbeliever now views himself only as a victim of human injustice. Thus, the message of the sinfulness of their idolatry is completely compromised by the use of power, because once civil laws are made against the sin of idolatry, they cheapen the gravity of this sin from being an offense against the eternal God of the universe into merely an offense against the majority beliefs of the Christian population of America.

The world is vastly unimpressed when Christians seek to legislate their beliefs against the will of the rest of the population. After all who wouldn’t like to see their own beliefs prevail upon the land? Great kings and great empires have acquired and lost dominion over the centuries, humankind grows weary of witnessing the ongoing struggle for political power. Such striving belongs to the machinations of worldly men who only have the things of this life to live for. The Christian testimony, on the other hand, is radically different from anything the world has ever seen. It is completely divorced from the use of worldly power and instead employs the weapons of the heavenly kingdom, which are meekness and weakness and humility. By bearing up under suffering, by rejoicing in our tribulations, by seeking to be not the masters but the servants of all, the power of heaven works in us and through us to conquer the human soul. Through our love and friendship, through our patience and gentleness, we live our lives in a way that compels friends and neighbors to look inwardly and confront the truth of their own moral corruption in the privacy of their hearts, minds and consciences. It is the testimony of humility and suffering, of speaking the truth while hanging on a cross, that pierces the hearts of men to see the sinfulness and misery of their estate before a holy God.

Christ did not come seeking to usurp the place of Caesar so as to enact his law in the land as the Jews wanted him to do. Christ taught that his kingdom was not of this earth, but of heaven. When James and John asked if they could sit at Jesus’ right hand and left when he came in his glory, he rebuked them saying:

You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. But it is not so among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many. (Mark 10:42-44)

> 2) why does not Leviticus 18:22-25 indicate that God's moral standard in the

> area of homosexual behavior applies to the heathen?

First a look at the passage:

Leviticus 18:22-25: “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled by it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion. Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled. For the land has become defiled, therefore I have visited its punishment upon it, so that the land has spewed out its inhabitants.”

Once again we see classic theocratic language in God’s pronouncement that “the land has become defiled.” God is casting these nations out of the land because their practices are defiling the land of Canaan, which God wishes to set apart for his holy nation. Here too we see how the theocratic arena of the land of Canaan is clearly marked out from the common grace arena that surrounds it. Obviously defilement is all over the earth, not just the land of Canaan. By setting apart Israel alone for consecration and judgment, for blessing and cursing, it is clear that God is treating the rest of the nations with the common grace restraint that he pledged in the Noahic Covenant.

It is upon the land of Canaan alone that God brings an intrusion of his holy kingdom which manifested itself in the slaughter of the ungodly through the conquests of Joshua. The slaughter of Joshua and his army was a foreshadowing of Judgment Day, albeit dramatized within a small area of real estate. On the real Day of Judgment, the entire earth will be scourged by God’s wrath because all the earth is defiled by sin. And it won’t just be scourged for the purpose of clearing the way for a nation like Israel. The kingdom of heaven itself will descend to earth, and all the resurrected saints will gather there and dwell eternally with their God and all the heavenly hosts (Rev. 21:1-4).

 

So yes, judgment of the heathen took place in the land of Canaan as Lev. 18:22-25 says. “For the land has become defiled, therefore I have visited its punishment upon it, so that the land has spewed out its inhabitants” (v. 25). But more importantly it was a warning of the judgment that will take place throughout the world on that future day which will come upon us like a thief in the night. The good news is that that day has not come upon us yet. Now is the day of salvation, the day of God’s patience toward the heathen, and a time of common grace restraint as well as a time when God is storing up the wrath expressed in Lev. 18:22-25. But that wrath would be turned away if only people turn to Christ and repent.

> I must repeat my mantra: any theological stance that gives license to call

> evil good (or good evil) must be fatally flawed. I'm still stuck on this point.

I think my theological stance clarifies sin as sin, and does not allow unbelievers to get away with cheapening sin into merely a behavior that the state finds unacceptable (see further comments above).

* * * * * *

In the common grace arena God’s agenda is not to enact laws that uphold standards of holiness in civil government so that he could bring judgment upon the heathen before the time. His purpose at this time is to restrain, forbear, plead and proclaim the good news. By allowing civil governments to be guided by the natural light of reason in preserving the well-being of society, they serve God’s purpose by allowing the wheat and the tares to flourish together until the day of harvest. Today both wheat and tares grow side by side together in the same field. Both enjoy the care of the farmhands, the nourishment of the sun and rain. But on the day of harvest the angels will come to gather the tares and throw them into the furnace (Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43). Likewise God sends sun and rain upon the believer and unbeliever alike. Both enjoy protection, security and peace under the authority of God’s common grace institution of civil government.

The best way to understand the difference between God’s standard operating procedure in the common grace arena vs. a theocracy is to look at the difference between Jesus’ treatment of sinners in the Gospels vs. the Book of Revelation. In the Gospels Jesus eats and drinks with sinners, he touches and heals them, he dwells with them in their houses, finally he submits himself to their taunts, their whips, their condemnations and ultimately to execution at their hands. Yet still he prays, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.” Ever are his hands held out to them, tirelessly inviting them, reasoning with them, pleading with them, holding open the doors of his banqueting hall to them in case they should repent of their hard-heartedness and come to his feast. This is the picture of God’s attitude toward sinners today in the common grace arena, when his patience and forbearance prevail.

In the Book of Revelation the time of patience and forbearance and common grace is up. Jesus Christ returns on a cloud of glory accompanied by all the heavenly hosts, and every sword is drawn. His judgment rains like fire and brimstone upon kings and princes, upon armies and nations. He shatters the kingdoms of the earth and destroys all its rebellious inhabitants, their blood covers the land and fills up the seas. There is no one who escapes. Thus the earth is cleansed of its defilement and finally succumbs itself to the consuming fire of judgment. This is a picture of God putting an end to patience and forbearance, and clearing the way for his theocracy. Just as the wrath of Joshua cleared the way for the typological theocracy of Israel, so the wrath of the Lamb clears the way for God’s present reign in the new heavens and new earth. The coming of God’s theocracy is sudden, abrupt and terrifying. It terminates the peace and complacency of the common grace era with a shout and the blaring of trumpets, and everyone who is not found in Christ on that day is undone.

There is no middle ground between the common grace arena and theocracy, between loving sinners and executing sinners, between judgment delayed and judgment realized. You cannot apply the rules of theocracy to a common grace arena, which is why I do not apply the laws of the Mosaic economy to the American civil government as you suggest. I believe that now is the day of salvation, the time of tolerance, forbearance and peaceful co-existence with sinners. And according to the wisdom that God has bestowed upon the civil government via his common grace, I believe our government promotes and protects such an existence, and should continue to do so. Now is the time to submit peacefully to non-Christian rule, not wrest power from them as Joshua and the armies of Israel did from the Canaanites.

For thousands of years of redemptive history the saints have conducted themselves in godly submission to pagan rulers, some peaceful and some hostile, counting themselves as aliens and strangers on the earth (Heb.11:9, 13), looking for the heavenly city whose architect and builder is God (Heb.11:10). I believe I should look to their example with respect to my conduct toward the civil government, and especially to example of Christ who conducted himself in peaceful submission and silent suffering as he went to the cross under the condemnation of human courts.

I do not believe I should take my cues from that special period of redemptive history that introduced an ethic of law and judgment which will only be seen again when heaven comes to earth; which ended in failure and exile because the whole point of the experiment was to show us just how short of heaven we fall; which failure brought about the coming of the Son of God, who alone could fulfill the holiness of that law and bear the curse of its judgment so that the gates of heaven would no longer be hopelessly shut against us. I do not believe I should take my cues from that particular period of redemptive history, because if I believed that the Mosaic law still binds us today, then I would essentially be denying the need for Christ to have come at all.