Dr Greg Bahnsen - Normative Ethics: Critics and Criticisms of Theonomy (Part 15)

Lord, we ask that as we call upon you as Lord, we might truly have hearts of servants, hearts which are willing to serve you and to submit to your word, to do whatever you tell us. We pray that as we study your word and especially your law, that we might not be looking for ways to escape our obligations, but rather looking for ways that we might become more submissive and that your will might be done more and more on earth, even as it is done in heaven. We thank you that you have given us your we take this as a gift of your grace. We thank you that we have not been left alone in this world to figure out for ourselves what might be the right thing to do, how we should behave. We thank you that you love us so much, that you've given us many details to guide us in this world. We pray that as we follow your guidance we might truly be light in a dark place, that we might scatter the unrighteous influences about us, that more and more your kingdom would grow strong, and indeed that the kingdoms of this earth would become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ. For it's in Jesus name we pray. Amen. We have been studying the normative approach to Christian ethics and through a long series of introductory matters and then an elaboration on the law of God and its normativity for today we came in our last lecture to a summary of what has been called the theonomic perspective in Christian ethics. I said that in one sense a person who holds the six theses or attitudes that I have mentioned is a theonomist, and only those who hold these six are theonomists. I take the six defining characteristics, then, of a theonomic approach to normative ethics as first of all, the Word of the Lord is the sole supreme and unchallengeable standard for the actions and attitudes of all men in all areas of life. That in one sense is an expression of the idea of a Christian world and life view. The second premise, the expression of the covenantal attitude toward hermeneutics, is we should presume that Old Testament standing laws continue to be morally binding in the New Testament until they are rescinded or modified in application by further revelation. The third premise qualifies that presumption, pointing out that we do recognize concrete differences between the covenants in regard to the Old Testament law. The New Covenant surpasses the Old in glory, power, and finality, thereby reinforcing the duties we have to the law of God and the New Covenant supersedes the Old Covenant shadows, thereby changing the application of the sacrificial purity and separation directives, redefining the people of God and altering the significance of the promised land. That being said, those three premises, the third being a qualifying sort of premise, those two premises lay the foundation four, five and six. Well, four and five in particular, extend it. And six is an attitudinal premise. Number four, extending now the general continuity which we presume with respect to the moral standards of the Old Testament. That is what I've already said in premise two applies just as legitimately to socio political ethics as it does to personal and church morality. After all, premise one has already said Christ is lord over all of life. Number five, Coming right to the point then, or to, if you will, one of the sine qua non premises in the theonomic perspective that tends to separate those who do and those who do not truly hold to the law of God. The way that I've outlined the civil precepts of the Old Testament are a model of perfect justice for today, even in the punishment of criminals. And then six, expressing the overall attitude, our obligation to keep the whole law of God cannot be judged by any extra scriptural standard, such as whether its specific requirements, when properly interpreted, are congenial to modern feelings and practices. The attitude of the theonomist is, in a sense, sola scriptura. And if God says it, so be it. Let God be true, though all men are liars. And if God says we are to execute witches, then we are to execute witches, whether it is comfortable, whether it's popular, whether it even seems reasonable to us. Now, with that summary, the theonomic perspective in mind, we're going to change gears. And for the next few hours, what I'd like to do is consider ways that have been used to attack the theonomic perspective and ethics, criticisms that have been made in position or challenges offered to the unity of old and new covenants with respect to the moral demands of God's law. I want to begin this discussion of the challenges made to the theonomic perspective with discussion of some pitfalls that we must avoid in disputing with the theonomic perspective, some pitfalls that everybody will have to avoid as they take it in hand to criticize the idea of unity between the covenants with respect to the law of God. The first pitfall that we must be careful to avoid is that of arbitrariness. Some of these things, you might think, shouldn't even have to be said, but sadly enough in the Christian church today, they really do have to be Said they need to be repeated, they need to be enforced. People do not have the right to throw out the theonomic thesis arbitrarily, that is, without offering a reason for throwing it out. The pitfall of arbitrariness in Christian ethics is, is the expression of an attitude of non accountability. I don't have to give an account for my beliefs or my attitudes. The feeling I have toward the theonomic thesis in particular. I can just do whatever I want. If I don't like it, I just reject it. Well, the proverb says, this is the attitude of a fool. Proverbs 12:15. The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but he that is wise hearkens unto counsel. It's wise to hear the counsel of others when it comes to what you should do, how you should live, what criticisms might be made of your beliefs. But the fool is as wise in his own eyes, doesn't really care about the counsel of others, or cross examination, or being accountable for his opinions. Proverbs 13:16. Every prudent man works with knowledge, but a fool flaunts with folly. It's a sign of prudence to work diligently in the area of knowledge, to make sure you have good premises and logical conclusions. But you see, the foolish man doesn't care to work over and to refine his positions, but simply to flaunt the foolishness of his heart. In Proverbs 14:15, 16, the simple believes every word, but the prudent man looks well to his. A wise man fears and departs from evil, but the fool bears himself insolently and is confident. The fool is confident that what he's saying is acceptable, and he doesn't look to what he's saying or where he's going. The fool is satisfied with his own convictions. So the first pitfall is the pitfall of arbitrariness. And I would suggest, to suggest practical matter, that as we discuss these issues today with others, and when we run into what is going to be a good deal of opposition in our secular culture, in our basically secular churches, to the idea of theonomic ethics, and we remember that people who just throw out the thesis without any reason are acting as fools, and the Bible gives some very definite directions as to how to answer fools and how to deal with fools, we mustn't deal with fools in the same way that we deal with people who are making a legitimate, although mistaken, effort to correct the theonomic thesis. The second pitfall, to avoid in disputing with your theonomic Outlook is that of rationalization, that is seeking a reason to support your opinion after you've already made up your mind. The rationalizer is one who says, well, I don't like what I'm hearing from these theonomists and I'm going to go about finding some reason to show that they're wrong. There must be some reason why I am right not to like this, even though I don't have any idea of what it is right now or the initial ideas that I have are easily refuted by the theonomist. But nevertheless, I'm going to keep looking and looking until I finally found something, some way to get rid of this idea. That's rationalizing. That's saying that no matter what the positive evidence is, no matter how lacking I am in a defense of my negative opinion, I'm going to keep looking and looking until I have what I need. Proverbs 18:13 says, he that gives an answer before he hears it is folly and shame unto him. The shameful way to behave when it comes to making doctrinal and ethical conclusions. Make up your mind before you've heard the evidence and then go about trying to defend what you had set forth in a preconceived way. The third pitfall people must avoid in disputing with theonomy, and this is a very difficult one for people to stay away from, is that of traditionalism, resting in the judgment of sin, some respected teacher, or resting in the tradition of your ecclesiastical environment, judging the theonomic perspective from the standpoint of statistical popularity, that sort of thing. Deference to non argued conclusions belongs only to God. So that if somebody tells me, most who say it by the way, really don't know their history. But if somebody says to me that this idea is brand new in the history, the Reformed tradition, I should defer to that idea. Or if I defer to that idea, I am granting the status and prerogative to tradition which the Bible says belongs only to God. If God says something, then I don't argue with him. God doesn't have to argue his conclusions with me, but God alone is in that position. Tradition is not in that position. My favorite seminary professor is not in that position. The most popular preacher in my denomination is not in that position. My parents are not in that position. No one is in the position to have their opinions accepted without an argument except God and the word of God. Those who defer to tradition over against the putative anyway, exegetical foundations for the theonomic perspective, those who defer to Tradition are overlooking the finitude, fallibility, and indeed the sin in everyone's environment, institutions and teachers. Matthew 15:3 and then six, nine. Matthew 15, verse 3. Jesus answered and said unto them, why do you also transgress the commandment of God? Because of your tradition. And you have made void the word of God because of your tradition. You hypocrites well that Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, this people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men. I realize that it's somewhat pointed, maybe harsh language, but it's biblical language to point out the people who will not submit to the theonomic thesis today because it doesn't fit in with their understanding of tradition are Pharisees. They are doing precisely what Isaiah prophesied, that people who honor God with their lips nevertheless don't have a heart that's right with God. The heart that's right with God doesn't just dispute with God's word or try to find clever ways around it. A heart that's right with God doesn't replace his commandment with the precepts and traditions of men. So we have to avoid arbitrariness, avoid rationalization, and avoid traditionalism. As a fourth pitfall that our critics need to take into account, people must avoid appealing to generality in the law of God over against detail. Many people want to appeal to generality and then give up the details of the law. That is, well, what we have here is the opinion or the attitude that we follow the law. In general matters, however, we don't have to get real specific. We may follow the law when it says we should be sexually pure, but when it comes to the question of fornication or masturbation or lust or some of these other things, we wouldn't have to get real pointed. That's an awkward illustration. That's an embarrassing illustration, because most of the people who set forth this line of thought don't want to endorse all of the expressions of sexual impurity. And they wouldn't say in the case of sexual purity that God just wants some vague idea of chastity or purity. But when it comes to homosexuality, well, that's all right. And yet for all of that in other areas, that's precisely what we find. We want to have economic purity, whether, you know, that applies to debasing our monetary supply. We want to have a just approach to criminology, whether that means we should excellence. Adulterers see the Details there are very easily shaved off in order that we might just follow the general law of God. Well, the first thing that's wrong with this is that it's quite ambiguous. What does it mean to say we can follow the law of God in general, but not in detail? What is it that makes for a criterion of generality over against detail? How do you mark out those principles which are general enough to be followed? Or those principles which are so detailed as to be picky? What is it that makes for generality or detail? What is the non question begging mark of requisite generality that preserves ethical obligations obligatoryness into the new age? Without begging the question, here's how you could beg the question. You could make a long list of all the laws that you want to be kept and a long list of all the laws you don't want to be kept. And then you could try to find some way to distinguish between the one set and the other set. Now I really don't think that could even be done inductively, but let's assume that somebody was clever enough to find some unifying principle that happens to bring together those laws which have been arbitrarily chosen to be binding today and distinguish from those which are not binding. That would still not answer this problem because we're asking for a non question begging principle that is almost in a blind sense from the outset. Tell us what do you mean by generality so that we can go and apply that test independently of your own opinion or your, if you will, papal decree as to which laws will be kept and which laws won't. Let's see if publicly we can apply some criterion to make sense of this. As you can see from my question, I don't believe it can be done. Even if it could be done. The fact is Jesus says in Matthew 5:18 that every jot and tittle of the law has eternal sanction until heaven and earth pass away. Not one joto, one plot fiddle shall pass away from the law till everything has taken place. You Notice in Luke 11:42 that Jesus does not condemn the detailed obedience of the Pharisees. He condemns their lack of perspective, but he does not condemn their detail. Having spoken of them tithing their garden vegetables, he says, woe unto you Pharisees, for you tithe mint and grew in every herb, and pass over justice and the love of God. But these you ought to have done, and not to have left the other undone. Jesus doesn't say, look, follow the general principles, love, justice, and the love of God. Those are fine ethical principles. But all this tithing and sticky detail that's just legalistic or externalistic or somehow wrong. Jesus says, you should do the general precepts, but you should also do those things which are very pointed and detailed. John Murray, in his Principles of Conduct, says one of the finest quotes in the entire book, one of the finest expressions. I like the quote in a way. In the book he says, too often the person imbued with meticulous concern for the ordinances of God, conscientious regard for the minutiae of God's commandments, is judged as a legalist, while the person who is not bothered by details is judged to be the practical person who exemplifies the liberty of the gospel. Here Jesus is reminding us of the same great truth which he declares elsewhere. He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much. And he that is unjust and released is unjust also in much. The criterion of our standing in the kingdom of God and a reward in the age to come is nothing else than meticulous observance of the commandments of God in the minutial details of their prescription and the earnest inculcation of such observance on the part of others. So the fourth pitfall, appealing to generality rather than detail, are over against detail. But this fitness that I'd like to mention this morning is that when all reasoning fails you, and when exegesis offers no support, then appeal is made to the tenor of the law versus the text of the law as a last resort, that is, when you take account of your responsibility not to be arbitrary or to rationalize or abuse fields of tradition. But reasoning fails you when you take account of the need to have an exegetical support for what you're saying. But exegesis is offering no support then. I've seen people at that point finally cornered, not wanting to be theonomist anyway, make appeal to the tenor versus the text of God's word in theonomy. My response to this is as as the history of theology evidences, it is just when men are willing to depart from Scripture's explicit statements in favor of their generalized, undeniably subjective assessments of the implicit message or meaning of the Bible, that doctrinal deviation begins to cut its wide swath. Of course, it's amazing how the imagined transtextual tenor of the Bible or of the New Testament always seems to correlate so exactly with the theological milieu, ecclesiastical background, and personal opinions of the one who is assessing this tenor. See it's Striking, isn't it, that the tenor never corrects the person who's assessing the tenor. One's own predispositions and the ideological status quo are easily read into this not so clearly defined and defended tenor. There's a sober lesson here for contemporary evangelical and reformed teachers. And it's as that which we disapprobate in unorthodox theologians is all too easily and unwittingly pressed into service against teaching that is uncongenial to our own preconceived opinions. Resort is the then made to tenor over against text. See the people who make appeal to the tenor of the law or the tenor of the New Testament to do away with the theonomic thesis are people who for the most part totally disapprobate the neo orthodox for the same technique. And the neo orthodox can appeal to the tenor of the biblical teaching about God and his relationship. They don't have to worry about the picky details, say, about predestination or the Trinity or what have you. It doesn't make any difference if the Bible teaches that God explicitly reveals himself in inerrant propositions. The neo orthodox tell us we just have to have a general feel for the God man relationship and the openness of the world to us and our existential freedom that we get in the Bible. Well, we disapprobate their approach to the Bible. We say that isn't. You can't appeal to some implicit meaning apart from the explicit statement. And yet evangelicals and reformed people who don't like the theonomic features do precisely the same thing. And it isn't as though their preconceived opinions are more, if you will, sacred than the preconceived opinion. To be orthodox, everybody's opinion is on a par when it comes to the word of God. And that is, everybody stands on the same footing. That is, if their opinion isn't worth anything apart from God endorsing that opinion for the sole standard in theology and ethics for the Christian is to be the written word of God. Well, what must be done in order to dispute with or reject the theonomic thesis? These are pitfalls that people often fall into. What could be done to reject the thesis that I've laid out? Well, on the one hand, personal feeling is too weak. Personal feeling is too weak. If somebody wants to reject this theonomic thesis, they will have to produce not just feelings, they will have to produce a non arbitrary scripturally grounded principle which will clearly and non circularly distinguish between valid and Invalid laws today we need to keep pushing non theonomists to tell us, how do you know the difference? How do you sort the apples? How can you tell which are the good ones to keep and the bad ones to throw out? On what principle do you accept or reject Old Testament laws? And that principle must be scripturally grounded and non arbitrary? Well, there's one principle that comes to mind that wouldn't be difficult for people to use, while personal feeling is too weak. And that's why I say you have to have a principle. Dispensationalism is too strong a principle. People can't run all the way to the other extreme and say, well then everything in the Old Testament is to be thrown out and the only thing that we follow today is the New Testament. And if the New Testament happens to repeat the Old Testament, well that's fine, but nevertheless, we're following the New Testament. Dispensationalism is too strong because dispensationalism as a principle empties Matthew 5:17 19 of its message. Quite obviously, Matthew 5 does not support the idea that the Old Testament law is abrogated until it happens to be repeated. Jesus says, you dare not teach that you can break any of the least commandments of the Old Testament. The principle there is one of presumed continuity. And so we need a credible, non question begging interpretation of Matthew 5 and its supporting text before we could accept the dispensationalist principle. First John 2, 4, for instance, tells us that anyone who says, I have come to know him and yet does not keep his commandments, this person is a liar. Now how do we account for this if the Old Testament commandments of God is the law of God, it's not generally binding today. So in order to dispute with or reject the theonomic thesis, people must produce a non arbitrary scripturally grounded principle which will clearly and non circularly distinguish between valid and invalid laws without emptying Matthew 5 of its message and other supporting texts like it. These opening remarks have simply been to lay out, if you will, the ground rules for dealing with challenges to the theonomic thesis. Do you have any questions on the ground rules that I've laid down? Okay, well then why don't we get underway with the first way in which people might choose to deny the unity between Old and New Testaments regarding the law of God? Often challenges come to the unity of the covenants with respect to law from dispensationalism or Lutheranism. The dispensationalists, of course, pit law versus Grace, Lutherans, lovers and Scriptures Gospel covenant theology, on the other hand, holds to the unity and the coherence of biblical ethics. Against these two positions, covenant theology is distinctly is a position distinct from dispensationalism and Lutheranism. And the covenant position has been illustrated, I think, in my book Theonomy and Christian Ethics. However, in his book on ethics, John Murray notes that even we who are covenant theologians have to answer the attacks on biblical ethics in its consistency, which arise from instances like divorce and polygamy. Murray says that he in general holds to the consistency of biblical ethics from Old and New Testament its unity. Nevertheless, we have to answer the attacks on biblical ethics or the consistency of biblical ethics that arise from the instances of divorce and polygamy. What I want to do here is to look at Murray's position on divorce and polygamy and then suggest an alternative way of handling those two counter instances to the unity of the Old and New covenants regarding God's law. Basically, Murray's position is like that of Carl Henry's. By the way, the two of them in their major books on ethics say essentially the position. They say that monogamy is grounded in the creation ordinance and that monogamy is reinforced throughout the Scripture, especially in the New Testament. So you have monogamy being a creation ordinance and reinforced in the Bible in various places, but especially reinforced in the New Testament. In the Old Testament, that is standing between the creation ordinance and the clarity of the New Testament. In the Old Testament period, we are shown concessions regarding God's monogamous ideal. These concessions, Murray and Henry would say, do not reflect God's divine ideal. That's because polygamy was not to be punished, for instance. But the progressive unfolding of God's will shows his demand for the restoration of the original monogamous standard that was seen at the time of creation. Murray asked, is there one coherent and consistent ethics set forth in the Bible, or is there antithesis, reversal and abrogation between Old Testament and New Testament in relation to marital affairs, specifically for living in divorce? He asked whether the canons of sanctioned conduct have changed. Is there contrast in terms of marital criteria between Old and New Testament? Well, his answer is that polygamy and divorce were practiced without overt disapprobation by some of the Old Testament's most illustrious saints. Both polygamy and divorce were practiced without overt disapprobation, Murray points out. There was no pronouncement of condemnation, no open censure of them. There was no disciplinary judgment, either civil or Ecclesiastical no penalty for doing these things. There doesn't seem to be any explicitly revealed provision against these things. There doesn't seem to be any direct prohibition. And Murray says that polygamy and divorce were actually laid down as civil rights in the Mosaic Law. And he cites here Deuteronomy 21:15 17 and Exodus 21, verses 9 and 10. It says, Here we find divorce and polygamy offered as civil rights. Nevertheless, according to Murray, both polygamy and divorce were basically wrong. They were still inherently wrong under the Old Testament. They were violations of the creation ordinance, and as such contrary to God's revealed will and inconsistent with standards of holy living. And thus even under the Old Testament, they were under the judgment of God. So the creation ordinances, especially as interpreted by Christ, show us that polygamy and divorce were contrary to God's revealed will. They must have been under God's judgment even in the Old Testament period. In summary's conclusion is that polygamy and divorce were consistent ethics set forth in the Bible. Or is there antithesis, reversal and abrogation between Old Testament and New Testament in relation to marital affairs, specifically polygamy and divorce? He asked whether the canons of sanctioned conduct have changed. Is there contrast in terms of marital criteria between Old and New Testament? Well, his answer is that polygamy and divorce were practiced without overt disapprobation by some of the Old Testament's most illustrious saints. Both polygamy and divorce were practiced without overt disapprobation, Murray points out. There was no pronouncement of condemnation, no open censure of them. There was no disciplinary judgment, either civil or ecclesiastical, no penalty for doing these things. There doesn't seem to be any explicitly revealed provision against these things. There doesn't seem to be any direct prohibition. And Murray says that polygamy and divorce were actually laid down as civil rights in the Mosaic Law. And he cites here Deuteronomy 21:15 17 and Exodus 21:9 10. It says, Here we find divorce and polygamy offered as civil rights. Nevertheless, according to Murray, both polygamy and divorce were basically wrong. They were still inherently wrong under the Old Testament. They were violations of the creation ordinances and as such contrary to God's revealed will and inconsistent with standards of holy living. And thus even under the Old Testament, they were under the judgment of God. So the creation ordinances, especially as interpreted by Christ, show us that polygamy and divorce were contrary to God's revealed will. They must have been under God's judgment even in the Old Testament period. And so Murray's conclusion is that polygamy and divorce were while civil rights under the judgment of God. And so he says, they were permitted or if you will, tolerated and yet were not legitimate or sanctioned. And Murray's way of expressing this is to say there was forbearance but not approval of polygamy and divorce in the Old Testament law. And of course, he appeals him through the statement of Jesus in Matthew 19, that Moses, for the hardness of your hearts, tolerated you putting away your wives, for the hardness of your hearts, Moses tolerated, which is Murray's interpretation of that passage, God tolerated through the Mosaic laws, divorce and polygamy. Murray then asked the question in his discussion, very interesting to me, he asked the question very explicitly, how could God allow his people to practice a violation of his preceptive will? How could God allow his people? How could God even sanction as a civil right violations of his preceptive will? And you may read the passages in his book yourself, but for all of my scouring this text, I can't find that he offers any reconciliation of this one. He poses the question and leaves it hanging. According to Murray, because of the perversity of the people, Moses permitted them to do these things Due to the human hardness of heart. The original canons of God were not applied in practice, although they were being had held in terms of God's attitude. He just wasn't applying them in practice. And Murray goes on to say that this principle, that the hardness of the human heart can keep God from applying in practice the standards which he holds as a matter of his own internal attitude, this principle, according to Murray, holds for divorce and can thus be applied to polygamy. And moreover, we have here a pattern for resolving other difficulties. To his credit, that Murray doesn't tell us what those other difficulties might be. But that's somewhat threatening because he says, having seen that we can hold to ethical evolution between Old and New Testaments on this basis of hardness of heart, he says that's a pattern for dealing with other problems. Well, one thinks what we have then at the paradigm that can be used for just about any other situation that could even be stretched so far as to allow for a dispensational understanding of Old and New Testaments, although Murray himself would not want to stretch it that far and quite sure, Murray feels that the fact of progressive revelation in the history of redemption relieves some of the tension we feel here. He says, with a greater degree of revelation, more severe judgment comes from God, greater responsibility, and thus polygamy comes under greater punitive sanction in the New Testament, with its fuller revelation, than originally in the Old Testament. Moreover, Murray says the Holy Spirit now works more fully and efficaciously in the hearts of God's people to bring greater conformity to the canons of behavior, the canons that God would have laid down from the very beginning of the human race creation. And so Murray finally concludes, having said all these things, that there is, quote, basic agreement, end of quote, basic agreement between Old Testament and New Testament. He says the standards are the same. The standards are the same. There's a unity in God's disapprobation for polygamy and divorce, but the difference is in one of toleration of the practice. So in a rather full way, that is Murray's position. And before I criticize it, and I feel rather strongly that this is erroneous. Although John Murray is to be well respected as a Calvinist theologian, and I have high regard for learning much from him, nevertheless, I think this is a real mistake. But before I point that out, I do want to at least say that Murray's treatment is much better than other positions that have been taken on this question of polygamy and divorce. And I'll tell you three of them. Some have said that monogamy was not imposed as yet in the Old Testament because of the necessity to replenish the earth. And that is a real embarrassment. Murray certainly has bettered that interpretation. Secondly, people have said that monogamy is a positive commandment, not springing from God's holy nature as such. And thus in different circumstances you can find different regulations governing marriage, that is, God just for that culture, wished monogamy, or in that particular case didn't wish monogamy, and in the New Testament feels it would be better now. And the whole idea is that God doesn't really have some inherent holy attitude with respect to marital relations. These are just positive laws laid down for local circumstances and not reflecting the unchanging character of God. So in our day and age, polygamy might be all right. All depends on what God's positive will is for today. And I think Murray's position certainly includes over the logical defects and the danger of that position. Thirdly, people have said that since upright men in the Old Testament were polygamous, and since the New Testament is relatively silent on the subject, we shouldn't take the monogamy of the creation order too seriously. The monogamy referred to in the creation order may simply have been because there was only one man and woman and that since that time the idea that men should have the right to have many wives, or at least many sexual compatriots, doesn't. Shouldn't bother us too much. I've read this opinion too. So Murray is not capitulating to some of these ridiculous or dangerous or I think, downright silly notions about the difference between polygamy and in the Old Testament, in monogamy in the New. His position is certainly an improvement on that. But having said that, and while Murray's position has some elementary truths incorporated in it, there is to be found, first of all, unnecessary concessions to discontinuity. Unnecessary because I think the exegesis of the relevant passages will show us that we don't have to make these confessions. And secondly, there's some downright dangerous principles and unanswerable problems in Murray's position, as I've laid it out. First of all, let's talk about these unnecessary concessions. The first illustration I want to deal with, since it's the one with respect to which Murray gains his principles, is the biblical treatment of divorce. The divorce legislation of the Old Testament is summarized in Deuteronomy, the 24th chapter, and in Deuteronomy 24. I think that exegetically we have to see that this passage does not allow divorce for a light cause. Divorce for just any reason is not permitted. In Deuteronomy 24, the passage says that this must be for some uncle, some indecent thing. Now, that Hebrew expression there for the unclean or indecent thing is broader than the offense adultery. It includes homosexuality would include fornication, would include any number of sexual sins. However, it's not restricted to sexual sins. In the Old Testament, it turns out to be a rather broad expression for abominable deeds. So just looking at the expression itself, unclean thing, we should note that this is a broad indication of detestable practices, especially of sexual nature. Now, according to my reading of Matthew 19, therefore Jesus was confirming Deuteronomy 24 in his divorce discourse because he gave as the ground for divorce the Greek word fornication. And when you do a study of the word fornication in Greek, lo and behold, it is not identical with adultery either. Fornication is a broad indication of detestable moral practice with a special sexual focus. So bestiality, homosexuality, adultery, fornication would all be. I mean, premarital fornication will all be forms of fornication. But the word itself is not precisely identical in denotation with adultery. Therefore, Jesus was saying the only ground for divorce Fornication is the same as Deuteronomy 24, the unfor clean thing, detestable practice, primarily of a sexual nature. And Jesus says in Matthew 19, from the beginning this was not so, but Moses allowed it for the hardness of heart. We must notice that in Matthew 19 Jesus does not claim that Moses tolerated something. The word used does not mean to tolerate it disapprobated with practice. It simply means to provide simple permission for something. There are no overtones of disapprobation. In fact, if you look, you just do a word study of that word. The vast majority of the context show that there's no disapprobation in the context. Even there's no demand in the semantics, certainly not in the context. Moses did not tolerate divorce. He permitted divorce. That's all Jesus is saying. And Moses permitted it for the hardness of the hearts of men. Notice that the reflection is upon the moral condition of the heart and not specifically of some particular race of men, as though the Israelites were more hard than others. Hardness of heart is an expression found in the Bible, referring to the fallen nature of man. Since the fall, man has had a hard heart. And since man's heart is fallen, Jesus can say quite clearly from the beginning this was not so. From the very beginning, when the first couple, the first married couple, were addressed by God, it would not have been necessary to permit divorce. God didn't have to lay down provisions for divorce from the beginning, but after the fall into sin, with the introduction of the hardness of heart, God then of course divorce becomes necessary. And so Moses, the Lawgiver permits it. And that's all Jesus is saying. As I understand it, from the beginning it was not so. But Moses allowed for the hardness of the heart and thereby specified that for an unclean thing, what Jesus calls fornication, men could gain, and women too, I believe, could gain divorce from their spouses. One further thing about divorce, because people will immediately suggest that there has been a change between Old and New Testaments regarding adultery. Because in the Old Testament, adultery was punishable by death, whereas in the New Testament adultery is punishable by divorce. Well, that is really over simple. In fact very misleading because not all adulterers are executed. In the Old Testament, for instance, a person who was an adulterer and no due process was possible would not have been executed. In the case of the trial for sincerity before the high priest, a woman might have been proven to be impure, adulterous. However, she would not have been executed. The Bible specifies another kind of penalty that will be incorporated, inflicted by God himself. And this because the civil authorities are not able to ascertain or kill. It's only through a special revelation, through a priestly ordeal trial. Moreover, Jesus says that divorce is appropriate for fornication. He doesn't say it's appropriate for adultery. Now, I'm not saying that it isn't appropriate for adultery, but let's just remember in terms of the precise things teaching of Jesus, he's not talking about how you treat adulterers. He's talking about how bad things have to be before you can get a divorce. He says it has to be this bad, as bad as fornication, which may include adultery. But that is not the subject of his discussion. The topic is the grounds for divorce, not the penal enactments against adultery. And quite clearly Jesus would have a place for saying divorce is appropriate even for adultery, even though in other contexts it would be appropriate also to execute the adulterer. Jesus might have been expressing what the family's response to the adulterer's spouse should be, even if the state doesn't do what's right. It's certainly true that the church has the right to excommunicate an adulterer, even as the family has the right to divorce the adulterer. As Jesus saying the church doesn't have the right to excommunicate because after all, he says that the punishment should be divorced. Nobody reasons that way. And I don't think we should exclude the state from having some say so in this either. So I don't believe that Murray is right in making the concessions that he does regarding divorce and adultery. Moreover, I think that we can have a stronger position, we can take a stronger position on the question of polygamy than is evident, at least by way of analogy with Murray's treatment of divorce. In the first place, polygamy was forbidden from the very beginning, and Murray's right about that. And that's where we got to stand our ground. Polygamy has always been forbidden by God. The creation ordinance In Genesis 2, verses 23 to 24 forbids polygamy. Christ's interpretation of the creation ordinance settled for all time. That that is. That is what it has meant from the very beginning. Jesus says that's the way it was. Secondly, in the Old Testament, you'll notice that polygamy was introduced and mentioned in context of disapprobation. This is stressing the situational or consequential standpoint, but that is fair enough. As previous persons have pointed out in Genesis 4:23 we see polygamy is introduced outside the covenantal line by the wicked civilization of Cain. Polygamy is a Cainite characteristic. However, the godly practice too, that's true, but nevertheless it was introduced not in the godly line, but in the ungodly line. And to their shame, the godly imitated it. But when the godly imitation, Abraham and Jacob, for instance, Genesis 16 and Genesis 29, when Abraham and Jacob contracted multiple marriages, they did so in less than honorable ways, with less than honorable motives and less than godly situations. And the effects of their multiple marriages are clearly shown to be abusive. The Bible doesn't hide the fact that you this was ill motivated and terrible in its consequences. And so the Bible shows disapprobation in context for the polygamy that was practiced in the Old Testament. Moreover, it's at least possible that one passage in the Old Testament clearly forbids polygamy, that is that the Mosaic law itself forbids polygamy, and that's Leviticus 18:18. Leviticus 18:18 and you shall not take a wife to her sister. According to my translation, you shall not take a wife to her sister to be a rival to her, to uncover her nakedness besides the other in her lifetime. The difficulty is that's interpretive because the word in the Hebrew is the same word. You shall not take a woman to a woman. And the interpretation here is, you shall not take a wife to her sister. And I can't rule out that interpretation. Sometimes the Hebrew word is used for a sister. However, it's just as possible and cannot be ruled out. On the other hand, that what Moses is saying is, you shall not take a wife to a wife, you shall not add a woman to a woman in your home in the lifetime of the one. And if that's so, then in this case we possibly have an explicit prohibition of polygamy right in the Mosaic Law. And even if we don't have that, clearly, polygamy is regulated by the Old Testament Law. Exodus 21, verses 9 and 10, Deuteronomy 21, 15, 17 are not permission for polygamy, they are regulation of the abuses of of polygamy. That's not splitting an insignificant hair to point out that difference. God may say from the creation ordinance on, you shouldn't have more than one wife. And yet God can just as well add, but if you're going to, then these regulations must be observed to make sure it doesn't get any worse. The fact that God regulates a further abuse doesn't mean that he has now come to approve of the abuse in the first place. Now, it's true, people can point out that there's no penal redress for polygamy in the Old Testament. But on the other hand, there's no penal redress for covetousness in the Old Testament either. Nobody would suggest that it wasn't forbidden just because God didn't give the state the right to punish it. And moreover, I want to add that there's no penal redress for polygamy in the New Testament either. The New Testament does not give the state or the church the right to punish polygamy. In fact, the one passage you can think of that a man cannot be an elder if he has more than one wife, he's a polygamist. That one passage, far from showing punishment that's not to punish the man, that's just to say he doesn't qualify for the office. Failure to qualify is different from having a specific penal sanction laid upon you. But that very passage proves that polygamy is not punishable. Because if polygamy were sinful in that way, in the punishable way, people could not be in the church as polygamists. They couldn't be served the Lord's Supper, and yet they clearly were in the church and were being served the Lord's Supper. But Paul says they do not qualify to be elders. They could not be leaders. I think we have to point out that the reasons that are offered for the supposedly lax attitude toward philosopher the Old Testament are very questionable. Murray says there was no open censure, but there are parallels to that. There's no open censure of a number of things. Lot laid with his own daughters and produced offspring. The Bible does not, as far as I can see, often offer any open censure of it. There is no penal discipline. Murray says. Well, there are other sins that are not disciplined by the state too. There's no explicit prohibition, Murray says. But I think there is an explicit prohibition. And Even if Leviticus 18:18 doesn't hold up, the creation ordinance would, Murray says it was a civil right. I would say it was civilly regulated. And Murray says, outstanding saints practiced it. And I pointed out, but always in the context of disapprobation. And therefore my conclusion on polygamy is that it is better than free love. It'd be much better for a man to be covenantally united with three women and support them and be true to those three women than to just run around like a dog with just any tramp in town. Free love is not the biblical ideal. Covenantal fidelity is. Although it is abusive to have that covenantal fidelity be expressed to three women as long as they're all within the context of a covenant, that's better than what we have in our own day and age because after all, even polygamous marriages protect the sanctity of the family, giving legitimacy to the children born. However, polygamy is condemned from the outset. However, it's not condemned with temporal regret. And I believe that's the same situation as we have in the New Testament. Condemned but not temporally redressed. And if that's the same in the New Testament as it is in the Old, then as a matter of fact, the unity of the Testaments has not been challenged by polygamy. Consequently, the first approach or the first challenge to our thesis that there's unity between Old and New Testaments on the law of God, the challenge from the marital circumstances or the marital laws having to do with divorce and polygamy, that challenge, I believe, is not a legitimate one. Let's take a break.