Let us assume that liberty is: “every man doing what is right in his own eyes.”
If that is liberty, then liberty is not an absolute good for a Biblical Christian.
Let us try a more careful notion of liberty instead: “the power in any agent to do or forbear any particular action, according to the determination or thought of the mind, whereby either of them is preferred to the other.”
If this is the case, then liberty is still not an absolute “good” for men, but a qualified one. No man has a right to act unjustly, so his liberty must be limited (Biblically).
Who should do the limiting? God will, of course, but God has not given all His powers to men or to any one institution.
However, it is not prudent for the state (as opposed to church or family) to be one who limits all immoral or unjust acts. So while I have no “right” to be immoral, I may have a legal option to do so in a prudent state. (See for example a failure to give to the poor.)
It seems good (Biblically) to allow men to choose between goods as they prefer. For example, God has given me the liberty to choose to marry (good) or not to marry (good) as I prefer.
Liberty is, therefore, a good and protection of that liberty is a good reason for civil government.
The Bible need not list every reason for civil government in order for that idea to be consistent with the Bible.
March 9th, 2010 | 1:30 pm | #1
The Bible need not list every reason for civil government in order for that idea to be consistent with the Bible.
Now there is an interesting concept
March 9th, 2010 | 1:32 pm | #2
Let me say that I am grateful that we have gotten here so quickly.
I’ll be back after a meeting to tell you why, and what I think of JMR’s newest post.
March 9th, 2010 | 1:34 pm | #3
Frank is glad!
I have made Frank glad!
Oh Blessed Polly-Anna be praised!
Today is a sun-shine day and I thank God for the weather!
Grins,
JMNR
March 9th, 2010 | 1:44 pm | #4
I’ll repost my comment here, as it seems relevant:
Biblically, the purpose and function of government can be discerned from three passages: Ro. 13:3-5; 1 Pet. 2:13,14 and 1 Tim. 2:1-4. If you want to sum up the purpose of govt. in one word, it would be “justice.” Vis-a-vis the guilty, they ought to be punished as they deserve; vis-a-vis the innocent, they ought to be protected, which includes the protection of property rights (start, e.g., with “Thou shalt not steal”, which assumes the right of property ownership). Govt. has as a God ordained goal that we should be free to live quiet and peaceful lives (1 Tim. 2:1-3), including the freedom to work and make a living (1 Thess. 4:11,12)
It’s clear God ordains protection for a certain sphere of activities. We thus call these “rights.”
March 9th, 2010 | 1:46 pm | #5
I don’t disagree, but don’t think one needs to find the entire purpose or pattern for government in the Bible. The Bible was not, after all, written for that purpose.
March 9th, 2010 | 1:47 pm | #6
One would be hard pressed to find a “republic” in the Bible, but I think it a form of government consistent with (in theory) Biblical ideas.
March 9th, 2010 | 1:53 pm | #7
I should add that my personal preference would be for a constitutional monarchy, but in practice in the US this will not happen.
A republic is o.k.
March 9th, 2010 | 2:06 pm | #8
One should not expect to find the entire purpose or pattern for government in the Bible.
March 9th, 2010 | 2:19 pm | #9
My first question to JMR, then, is to discover what the material difference is between this:
“every man doing what is right in his own eyes.”
And then this:
“the power in any agent to do or forbear any particular action, according to the determination or thought of the mind, whereby either of them is preferred to the other.”
It seems to me that the only difference between the two expressions is that one is a transaltion of the maxim from 3000-yr-old hebrew, and the other is in ripe Enlightenment philoso-speak. I prefer the former for two reasons:
1. It’s the Bible’s way of describing what men do when left to their own devices.
2. It doesn’t cloud the issue with wordiness.
Let me propose without any qualification that the two are interchangeable, and if there’s an objection, let’s hear it — but let’s not just object that we don’t like how that makes us feel about the matter. Exegetically, the English in the second phrase cannot be construed to imply any epistemological precondition which guides a man other than what seems right to him at the time — yet, if it can, please let’s see how that’s possible.
To his credit, JMR says this:
We are speaking the same language, even if I think the second phrase cannot be manipulated to say this. But from here we have to map the Biblical limits of “liberty”. That is: how do we get from God to my liberty to do “X” action given the things the Bible says about man and God (and government)?
I think it’s interesting that you are saying, for example, that church discipline and family shame might be good governors of (in the example you list) alms to to poor. I think it’s your aversion to the question of justice showing through again.
What if we’re not talking about alms — what if we’re talking about wages? For example, what if I work for Fred’s Lawn Care as a day laborer, and Fred promises me a denarius for every day I work with him — to be paid in full on Friday, in cash. Friday rolls around, and I have worked the rest of the week with Fred, but when I show up at the pick-up point that morning Fred isn’t there — and doesn’t come back? Or worse — what of Fred does come back Friday morning and instead of giving me 5 denarii at the end of the day he gives me 2 or 3 and says the rest is rent for using his tools?
I know what you will call this: breach of contract. Old-school 10-commandments Lying. The problem is that your original example is also a violation of the 10 commandments — through covetousness. That is: it refuses to see that alms are due to the poor in the same way that payment is due to the laborer (we can go to Lev and Deu if you need the chapter and verse; I suspect you know how the law fleshes out almsgiving). Worse still for your case, in Israel, the government collected alms and distributed them. So the example of the government God would establish (that is: which he did establish) contradicts this reasoning.
Before we go too much farther, let me say this: I am pretty confident that a secular state which attempts to do what Israel was tasked to do will end up like the Soviet Union did: bankrupt, and corrupt. But the reason for that teleology is not that these functions of government are illegitimate: the reason is that the god to which that state is in service is not God. It may be established by him for a time and a place for His purpose, but like the Assyrians a totalitarian goivernment serving an idol is an offense to God Almighty.
And in that we are again at the question and problem of justice, and of the God-established role of Government to administer justice.
For a professor, you are using words somewhat precariously, JMR. When you says “goods”, you don’t mean “wares” or “items”: you mean “outcomes”. And this phrasing of the question is utterly utilitarian — driven by the ends, not by the premises and the means. there’s no way to frame utilitarian ethics as Biblical, and I suspect you know it — which is why you have popularized your terms. I would grant that maybe you have popularized the terms and therefore mistakenly gone down the utilitarian road. Either way: not headed down the Biblical path.
What you are also mucking up, I’m afraid, is the idea that because we have a will we are simply entitled to use it as we see fit. Yet it turns out that, for example, the Bible admonishes us to put every thought captive to Christ; it tells us that we obey the laws of men by exceeding the Law through love. And in the case of marriage (which is your example), may God forbid that we marry primarily or even for the express purpose of doing what satisfies me most. Marriages made like that are doomed to failure — and Ephesians 5 tells us why.
It seems to me that you see choice as the ultimate virtue of the human mind, perhaps as an expression of the imago dei. But it also seems to me that the Bible tells us that when we are reasoning it out for ourselves rather than obeying God and the authorities he has established — Himself, the church, the state and the family (which you have been kind enough to list for us) — we are simply doing wrong.
I’m not sure what your “therefore” is there for. you haven’t reasoned to this conclusion at all. Instead you have asserted it, and then circled back to assert it a few more times in order to justify your original assertion.
I implore you again: point to someplace in the Bible which says any of the things you have asserted. If you do, you will find that your assumptions are faulty, and therefore your conclusions are suspect.
The problem, of course, is that the Bible sets up a clear enough vision of government that we can therefore know what we should and should not expect from it, and what we should and should not invest in it. And it has very little to do with the categorical “goodness” of “liberty”.
March 9th, 2010 | 2:21 pm | #10
For the record, I’m also glad JMR is posting again here at Evangel. I missed him in his absence.
He may be wrong a lot. That doesn’t make him unpleasant company. I oppose his policy choices (religious and political) and love the man.
March 9th, 2010 | 2:29 pm | #11
I only post when I have something to say . . . even if wrong!
I did not so much take a break as get the feeling I had (for the moment) said (mostly) what I had to say in a manner appropriate to this forum.
March 9th, 2010 | 2:31 pm | #12
JMR also said:
Except for the fact of King Jesus. It astounds me that somehow men of good conscience can read the Bible for all manner of things, but that somehow they miss the point that the Bible is about God and His messiah, King Jesus.
For example, we can see somehow that the antichrist will be manifest in all manner of evil governments. Are there any good governments? What are they manifestations of? Does the Bible speak of that which these are a type of? So how do we apply that?
I would say rather that is can beconsistent with Biblical antropology and the teleology of the whole world as described by the Biblical narrative. it is not necessarily consistent — and I think that’s where you again scoot off the main road, JMR. You have invested yourself prima face in constitutionalism and republics rather than seeing them as means which must abide by presuppositional standards to be of true moral use.
Not to put too fine a point on it.
March 9th, 2010 | 3:14 pm | #13
You guys should read my new book, Politics for Christians: Statecraft as Soulcraft (InterVarsity Press). I address all this stuff. Just click my name.
Shameless self-promotion over.
March 9th, 2010 | 3:27 pm | #14
Frank:
I prefer the second definition because it uses terms that have been defined in a political context by the author. The Bible does not define its terms and this can lead to confusion.
This difference might matter. For example, “preference” has a full explanation in Locke. I know what he means and where he thinks it comes from. Judges (the book/author in question) is not so precise. What does the author of Judges mean by “right in his own eyes?” What choices are being described?
The writer of Judges seems to mean something bad (and only bad) by the phrase and something fairly limited. I would suggest he is using it in a fairly restrictive sense. (He does not mean, for example, that everyone chose their favorite style of lamb’s meat during the time of the Judges and that this led to chaos. It seems a rhetorical stand in for: “created their own law that went against the commands of God.”)
To give another example of difference: “Agent” is not the same as “man” since many beings are agents who are not men.
My hope was that it would allow us to proceed with some clarity, but if not we shall try to gain clarity without it. If you want to argue that the Biblical phrase and the phrase in Locke are the same, then I will (for the sake of argument) simply agree . . . though I am dubious that the contextually the Biblical phrase was meant to apply to all types of liberty. (for example, my liberty to choose to eat or not eat meat)
Frank says my view: “refuses to see that alms are due to the poor in the same way that payment is due to the laborer . . . ”
And I agree that we disagree! Alms are not like wages in some ways. Alms are my duty, but cannot be demanded by you from me. You have a right to contracted wages and can demand them from me (as an individual).
The man who sees my wealth and assumes I must give it to him, covets, and he may be wrong that my particular wealth is due to him. Not all my wealth must, after all, be turned to alms and I need not give alms to any particular man.
Frank says:
Worse still for your case, in Israel, the government collected alms and distributed them. So the example of the government God would establish (that is: which he did establish) contradicts this reasoning.
I say:
The pattern of ancient Israel (as a nation) is not directly applicable to me. This was a unique people in a unique circumstance. Because something was good for ancient Israel does not mean it would have been good for all ancient people’s let alone all moderns. All ancient peoples (for example) did not have God’s unique covenant with the Jews.
The “people” established under the Mosaic law is not replicable today. It is not even the state King Jesus will establish on the Earth in the future as His Kingdom will be . . . a Kingdom . . . and the direct rule of God on Earth. Israel was not a “state” in the same sense any modern nation (or even other ancient peoples) could be a state.
They were “chosen.”
A Christian state might decided to give out alms in some circumstances, but the example of ancient Israel will not be determinative in making that decisions.
The most I am willing to say is that there existed one circumstance where the “government” collecting alms and giving them out was licit . . . but those circumstances no longer exist. (This is not to argue that I therefore know all alms giving by the state is wrong.)
Frank continues:
By a “good,” in terms of marriage, I meant a state that seems best to me. I do think some questions are best decided by “ends” and not “means,” but this does not mean I think all questions should be so decided.
Some things are wrong in themselves. These should not be done. . . ever. (See the torture of an innocent, for example!) Other things depend on my preference or their outcome. It is good to brush my teeth (I take it), but mostly because of a good outcome. If I could/can get the outcome otherwise, I shall cease to brush my teeth. It turns out (most? many?) things I do are like this.
Of course, the Bible does not say much about this kind of choice, because that is not a topic that the Bible is written to cover . . . not being a book about such things.
I think it is perfectly consistent with the Bible for me to choose to eat a breath mint or not to eat one, to choose to use this word just now as opposed to another, or do whatever else suits a particular end I have in mind.
I believe in many areas I am entitled to use my will as I see fit. I am Christ’s slave, but He is a liberal master! Just because every thought I have is subject to His will does not mean that He has decided to control every choice.
My reading of Paul on marriage seems to leave me with the choice between two goods, but let me not insist on the example. I just drank a savory Diet Coke. I think God left it to me decide if I should drink or not drink the Coke. I submitted my will to Him and He said, “Do what pleases you!” That seems the case with most decisions in the average Christian life.
How is that not compatible with the Biblical revelation? When Jesus gave His disciples bread and fish, did He also have a particular will about how much and in what proportion they ate it?
Surely this is either nonsense or a view of God’s will that at least one must concede not all Protestants (let alone most Christians) have held.
Frank says:
It seems to me that you see choice as the ultimate virtue of the human mind, perhaps as an expression of the imago dei.
I say:
I think liberty is a gift of God in some cases. It is an expression of the image of God, but it is not the “ultimate virtue” since it is a power of the soul. Love would seem the ultimate virtue.
Frank says:
But it also seems to me that the Bible tells us that when we are reasoning it out for ourselves rather than obeying God and the authorities he has established — Himself, the church, the state and the family (which you have been kind enough to list for us) — we are simply doing wrong.
I say:
This seems true as far as it goes. Who believes we should “reason by ourselves?” Not Locke and not me. But I will say that in the end, having listened to what I take to be Him, read His Word, listened to His Church, gotten wisdom from my family and the Law, I must decided what I think he is saying.
The fact that this is always clear means that I must choose myself. Authorities do not all agree, the Bible does not interpret itself infallibly in my head, and the church and state sometimes (in their particular manifestations) miss Him.
Here is a modest argument for liberty being a “good:”
1. Some men prefer one food to another.
2. This preference is compatible with the will of God. He commands no man to eat food in every case of food choice.
3. If God allows it, then men should be loath to forbid it.
4. It is therefore sometimes moral for me to eat or not eat a food depending on my preference.
5. If I can eat or not eat according to my preference, then (based on Locke’s definition) I have liberty in regards to certain food choices.
I derive pleasure from this liberty and so it seems like a “good.” It is not the greatest good (or as in this case a very great liberty or good!), but it is a good.
I see nothing incompatible with Sacred Scripture in any of these assertions as most seem implied by it.
I don’t think Scripture is an exhaustive source of political theory.
March 9th, 2010 | 3:29 pm | #15
But Frank Beckwith . . . I really, really like your book and agree with it.
Does that mean Frank Turk will hate it?
March 9th, 2010 | 3:32 pm | #16
I think the Bible tells me things that lets me know some governments are “anti-Christ,” but does not give me an exhaustive political theory for deciding all these questions.
If King Jesus were here, I would need no political theory. He isn’t (fully) yet reigning as He will, so for now I need one.
March 9th, 2010 | 3:40 pm | #17
Frank Turk says:
You have invested yourself prima face in constitutionalism and republics rather than seeing them as means which must abide by presuppositional standards to be of true moral use.
I say:
Well, I am invested in constitutions . . . though am only moderately fond of republics. I would prefer (speaking only for myself) a constitutional monarchy, but nobody is asking!
I think a constitutional government must be virtuous.
We do not seem to agree with how “knowable” such virtues are, but that would be to rehash the merits of a certain form of Calvinism.
March 9th, 2010 | 3:43 pm | #18
“You guys should read my new book, Politics for Christians: Statecraft as Soulcraft (InterVarsity Press). I address all this stuff.”
I have actually ordered a copy, Francis, and I look forward to reading it.
March 9th, 2010 | 3:43 pm | #19
That, my firend, defines this conversation in a way I think you want to reconsider immediately. If you’re saying the book of Judges (and both books of Kings and of Chronicles) is less clear than Locke, then you and I do not have a basis for discussing what is and is not “Biblical”. We are talking about two radically-different things.
March 9th, 2010 | 3:45 pm | #20
I should add that if I become convinced that Constitutions were contrary to Scripture or the Faith, I would not be for them.
March 9th, 2010 | 3:45 pm | #21
Dr, Beckwith — I didn’t see it in my last IVP promotional mailing catalog. I would love to read it.
March 9th, 2010 | 3:47 pm | #22
You are now atomizing statements rather than seeing them in the context of the whole argument.
You can do better than that, I am certain. :-)
March 9th, 2010 | 3:51 pm | #23
I do think the book of Judges does not define its terms rigorously. Locke does (by the standards of his time).
But then Judges is relating a story and Locke is writing philosophy . . . so it is not shocking that Locke has the virtues appropriate to his genre and Judges has different virtues.
March 9th, 2010 | 3:53 pm | #24
Frank Turk:
I don’t mean to atomize. I just don’t think (with most Christians) that the Bible is the exhaustive source for political theory . . .
It is sufficient for salvation and true where it speaks in any area (including politics), but it does not speak sufficiently (for moderns) in several areas and one of these is politics.
March 9th, 2010 | 4:18 pm | #25
I’d respond, but my jaw is on the floor.
March 9th, 2010 | 4:43 pm | #26
Frank Turk:
Let me go further:
I am bound to what the Bible teaches, but where it does not teach, I am at liberty to devise the best means I can to live a good life.
March 9th, 2010 | 4:51 pm | #27
Does the Bible speak sufficiently to the use of the internet for a Christian to live under its authority?
March 9th, 2010 | 4:56 pm | #28
Where it does speak (ethical use of tools, for example), we are bound. Where there are clear implications, we are bound.
Where is silent, we are not bound.
John Mark
March 9th, 2010 | 4:58 pm | #29
JMR –
List one aspect of internet use in which regard the Bible does not give us clear direction. Normally I’d ask for 3, but one will be utterly sufficient for this discussion.
March 9th, 2010 | 4:59 pm | #30
Frank,
You have made the claim that freedom is not a virtue. I don’t know anyone who says it is. Saying something is good or is a good is not necessarily claiming something is a virtue or virtuous. Eating is a good thing, but that doesn’t make it virtuous. The same can be said about exercise, education, etc.
Freedom and free will are not necessarily the same thing because the first is often used as a political term rather than a theological or philosophical one. With regard to free will, it is a good but not a virtue. I say this because God made free will; He cannot make bad things. Therefore, it has to be good. God could have made man without free will, but we know that such a being would not be a true person because persons by definition have free will. To be unable to will is to be a non-person, such as a plant or a rock. I say this with regard to the category of person because it could be the case that some persons cannot will anything (I make room for someone in a coma or some altered state that deviates from the norm of personhood). The bigger point I want to make in all this is that while free will is good, it is not a virtue. HOWEVER, without free will there are no virtues. Virtue is meaningless when applied to things that lack genuine free will.
To connect that to a political sense of freedom, it is true that not every freely chosen act is good because freedom is good. The same can be said about sin. Sin is chosen, but that does not mean that because God made free will that an abuse thereof makes free will evil. Sin makes PERSONS evil. With regard to society, being able to determine many aspects of life is part and parcel to being in the image of God, even if that image is tarnished. The image cannot be stamped out. People ought to be able to choose many things, including evil things. It is in the instances of choosing evil things that government may have to punish, but not every evil thing ought to be punished by government. I should be able to lie to my friends without punishment, but I should be punished if I lie in court.
What is about talking about freedom that gets you all riled up. I really don’t get it. I know you don’t believe man has free will (which, if you respond to this or don’t I know you’re only doing so because you MUST). You seem to get frustrated with the talk of political free will. Is this an example of a person becoming like his god? Because you believe God has chosen the means and ends of life, do you conclude that talk of freedom is utter nonsense, even blasphemous?
March 9th, 2010 | 5:05 pm | #31
Whoa. This is a two-bags-of-popcorn thread.
March 9th, 2010 | 5:08 pm | #32
Mr. Turk has not dealt with the biblical data given up top (which he demanded, I remind you). Methinks that is an admission, the sort that gets cases thrown out of court.
March 9th, 2010 | 5:30 pm | #33
I love that.
God made Lucifer, too.
Please help me see where in the Bible it says anything about how “God made free will”. I suspect you’re going to have a hard time demonstrating that man’s will is something which is “free” before you get to the part where God made it that way.
Let me line out my position before we go one inch further on this matter:
1. Unquestionably: man has a will. Man chooses all the time. Man has a mind and reason and is morally-responsible for what he does. It would be right to say that man wants to do what he does — he does what he does willingly.
2. What we see historically and biblically as the consequences of man choosing shows us without any question that, in the best case, man’s will is limited by man’s limited powers to effect his own will. Among those limits is a particularly-pernicious problem of man’s own essential moral shortcoming.
3. The demand that man has “free will” really doesn’t want man either to be “free” or really to have a “will”. That demand will always — always — be made by a person who is seeking to minimize God’s authority in some sphere of creation for the sake of empowering man to be without God.
Those things said, you may fire when ready.
March 9th, 2010 | 5:33 pm | #34
Johnny D tosses in:
I’m dealing with the little bits first. The part where JMR resorts to decompiling the OT is up next on my list.
March 9th, 2010 | 5:37 pm | #35
C’mon man, I spent the time to answer you with the NT. Toss me a bone here. At least a verse.
March 9th, 2010 | 5:41 pm | #36
The problem, of course, is that the Bible sets up a clear enough vision of government that we can therefore know what we should and should not expect from it, and what we should and should not invest in it. And it has very little to do with the categorical “goodness” of “liberty”.
My good friend Mr. Turk (I’m feeling all congressy today) has been wrong before, but I can’t recall his being so demonstrably wrong. He makes mistakes, but not category mistakes, as he does here (even while using the term categorical. I love irony). That, it seems to me, is why he is not using the Bible now, as he has demanded of others (note how many times he a) answers a question with a question or, b) demands the other provide this or that quantum of evidence).
The category mistake is very simply equating purpose and value in the realm of description; IOW, the descriptions of the purposes of government do not perforce demand a description of the value behind it.
Indeed, the purpose of government may have everything to do with the goodness of liberty. Here’s how we can start to get at a real answer:
Frank, to whom does the Tenth Commandment apply? Can you discern the purpose of it? We can move on from there.
March 9th, 2010 | 6:03 pm | #37
Dear Frank,
I am not a member of ancient Israel. I am not a citizen of that nation. While I may become ancient, sadly I can never become an ancient Israeli.
Sigh,
John Mark
March 9th, 2010 | 6:10 pm | #38
Frank says:
“The demand that man has “free will” really doesn’t want man either to be “free” or really to have a “will”. That demand will always — always — be made by a person who is seeking to minimize God’s authority in some sphere of creation for the sake of empowering man to be without God.”
I say:
No. It is not. Man could not exist without God. Man has no freedom without God. Man’s freedom depends on God.
God has all authority.
However, the fact that God has all authority does not mean that He does not delegate any authority.
If man has any authority, it is delegated to man from God. Liberty is God’s gift to mankind.
One example: I am at liberty to will or not to will to drink this Diet Coke. Mmmm . . .
I have chosen . . . wisely.
March 9th, 2010 | 6:13 pm | #39
BTW: within this context the agent is free, not the will.
JMNR
March 9th, 2010 | 6:14 pm | #40
I am the agent . . . my will is a power.
March 9th, 2010 | 6:18 pm | #41
Frank,
In essence, you are saying that any being other than God is not free. You believe that somehow man is destined (predestined?) to fall no matter what. You say that God made lucifer and cite that as an example of God making something that isn’t good. I know I don’t have to explain to you that Lucifer was once good. By his own will he fell.
Man, as a category, is good. Individuals may be evil by their own will, but God’s creations are always good in their essence. God CANNOT create evil because evil is not a creatable thing. Evil is defined only in relation to to good, and God cannot be separated from Himself. Therefore God can only do good because He is good, the ultimate standard, where the buck stops.
Do I really need to find a verse that says exactly “God made free will”? Somethings are axiomatic. I do not need to find a verse that says “You need to know how to read in order to read this verse and all the other verses”. Nor do I need to find a verse that says “This is the Bible. It has words.” God does not need to say to us “You have free will”. The alternative would be “You do not have free will.”, in which case reading it would be meaningless, anyway.
Since you do not believe in free will, Frank, I now understand that your objections to my arguments are not ontologically rooted in your understanding of what I’m saying and disagreement thereof, but rather in your internal wiring and the destiny you must live.
March 9th, 2010 | 7:08 pm | #42
Ah: the Bible and what we think of it. It’s always quite the measure of a man’s worldview.
JMR commented:
I’d be willing to agree without qualification that the quoted text is one aspect of what the text means when this phrase comes up. The problem is that it says what it means a specific way.
For example, let’s look at Deu 12:7-8 [ESV], where this phrase first occurs:
It’s odd, isn’t it, that what God says here is that somehow what Israel was doing was, in the first place, what they are doing at that moment, prior to the crossing of the Jordan. In the second place, it’s also odd that Moses has juxtaposed the uninformed willingness of the people against what would be the informed perspective they would have after crossing the Jordan.
The phrase here speaks specifically to what they are willing to do – not merely the problem that they did something God didn’t like. The phrase is chosen to show that these are action man does in spite of God, and that the actions are therefore lawless.
We ought to jump ahead, then, to Proverbs – first to Prov 21:2, which says, “Every way of a man is right in his own eyes,but the LORD weighs the heart.” Think about that: it’s clear here that the proverb is speaking of the problem man has that that everything he thinks of he can justify to himself, but then God has the ability to see the intention of the heart. It’s clear that man does not know what he ought to know about himself, but God does.
The other Proverb particularly telling is Prov 12:15, “The way of a fool is right in his own eyes,but a wise man listens to advice.” This proverb speaks to the same problem – but points out that the wise man doesn’t take his own judgment at face value.
In the Bible, this phrase it used to make the point clear that man’s ways are not God’s ways – and man’s ways land man in a heap of hurt. It is not just that man disobeyed God, but that man’s intention is to disobey God by doing his own thing rather than God’s thing.
But let me say this to be transparently clear: even if the implication of the phrase is only “make my own law as opposed to God’s law”, that implication speaks to my point rather than JMR’s point. If the only think this phrase means is “my law over God’s law”, then my point – which is that liberty is not an absolute good. Liberty is not an objective for Government in the Biblical view.
Why? Because man, left to his own devices, does what is right in his own eyes, and not what God expects of him.
The unfortunate problem, of course, is that this is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. To make “Government” an agent is to impersonalize the activities of men and to miss the point that government is an activity God ordains for men to do. In a different example, my dog is also an agent. Government does not apply to my dog: only to me, who owns the dog.
An interesting example. You’re saying gluttony is not an example of liberty? I find that hard to believe.
Brakes on. Alms do not have to be identical to wages for the point to be made. The question you have raised is whether or not alms are a right place for government to enforce justice. The OT says “yes” – alms are actually a requirement for the Jews in Israel, for example, when harvesting the crop. There is also an alms tax in the Mosaic law. Apparently alms can be morally demanded of you.
I suggest you review the Mosaic law. If you fail to pay me, a judge must decide if I have been wronged – and you would be forced to pay restitution. If you refuse to pay alms under the OT moral law, what is the recourse? If it’s “tough luck, schmuck,” then you’re right. If refusal to pay alms and the alms tax is enforceable, you’re simply wrong: the Bible makes it clear that the government can and should have some role in the right-minded collection and distribution of alms.
My first thought here is, ‘see above,’ but my second thought is a little more devious.
My second thought is that you cannot distinguish between moral obligation and extortion to say what you have just said. That is: you’d willingly equivocate the moral requirements of the rich to the poor – and the poor’s perception that the rich should, in some way, show mercy – with covetousness in order to make your point.
Tell me: how do you interpret the parable of the Good Samaritan? Where the men who walked past the dying man simply exercising their liberty? If not, then I suggest you have a rather large tooth missing in your cogs of your moral reasoning. That’s the NT application of the OT law, JMR. Those things have to work in your political reasoning somehow. I thing they do not.
here we go, y’all. This is where JMR’s hermeneutics all come out in full force. That is: this is where we discover if he really reads what’s there or he’s reading what’s convenient for the moment.
Please: carry on:
I’ll grant you these premises:
1. Temple worship in Israel was required due to the uniqueness of the constitution for the government. Something is different new which would remove that requirement.
2. The fact which removes the requirements of the temple also removes the ceremonial law associated with the temple.
3. The whole covenantal law is itself a unique item in history because of its source, not because of its object (that is, from whom it came, not to whom it was given)
After that, it’s all an uphill fight for you for one reason only: the mode of government in Israel is explicitly a type of the government Christ will establish in the eschaton. That is: it is meant to point to the greater reality as a type and shadow.
Agreed. The question is only this: does that make the covenant with the Jews a lesser form of government, a greater or more important type of government, or merely another, mostly-equal form of Government.
Be careful – because the Bible does give the answer to this question. Make sure you know what that is before you run it down for us “moderns”.
I guess that’s why Jesus said on about the Kingdom of God, eh?
This answer speaks directly to the question I have already asked you: does that make the covenant with the Jews a lesser form of government, a greater or more important type of government, or merely another, mostly-equal form of Government.
It seems you want to answer, “None of the above. It wasn’t even a Government.”
That answer is simply illegitimate. It makes no sense in light of, well, all the books from Samuel to Micah.
Careful now – I was going to void that question for the sake of belaying all the anti-Calvinist trumpeting that goes on around here, but if you’re going to bring it up: chose for what purpose?
I like that – they’d be following the same God, turning to the model God has already provided, but they wouldn’t so it that way.
I suspect you’re almost right: they wouldn’t do it as a minimalistic compulsion. They would exceed the requirements of the law. The Law would be a tutor rather than a task-master. They would likely give because they were actually generous and not because there was mint and cumin to be tithed upon.
What that doesn’t speak to, however, is how they would know how to run such a thing. You say the Bible doesn’t speak to it, but to say that you have now said that the Bible does speak to it – and we should ignore it because it’s for somebody else.
That’s not the same thing.
I think you’re doing a fine job of simply demonstrating that “freedom” is not a goal of government: justice is. The more you qualify how the Bible doesn’t help us, it seems to help more and more and point us to the fact that there is a model of government, and a type of ruler/king, which we should really be considering when we think about how we would run things if we had the chance.
Please: keep up the qualifiers. They all minimize your main point.
I think you generally want it both ways, Dr. JMR. That is: you want to say that the Bible is you authority, except when you don’t want to say that at all – when it is inconvenient to say so because it means that there are, for example, political realities that you don’t want to accept or live out.
Most things are utilitarian; a few things are not. And of those few things, I wonder which the Bible instructs “moderns” about …
… wait for it …
You mean about tooth-brushing? Or about how to live as if God is real and his Son is risen from the dead?
See: if you frame it as the former, the Bible is a completely-useless thing. How can it inform any action? It was written for Israel, then for those for whom Israel waited for for millennia – not me. So the problem of what justice looks like under God is not for me – I have to worry about whether I’m going to brush my teeth of not.
This is the argument JMR is presenting, folks: the Bible is only good for (some) theology, but not, for example, how the injustice of the kings of Israel informs the Christian about how to follow the True King of Israel when they are pilgrims under the rule of other, far-lesser kings and satraps.
Where’s the Evangel in that?
I find it informative to note that Dr. JMR has now transitioned his argument entirely away from his original thesis – which is civil government and liberty – to the minutia of modern living. Apparently, if the Bible does not tell me when to buy which tube of tooth-paste, it can’t inform the Christian about how to live as a citizen of a secular state.
Not sure how the first 300 years of Christians made it to Nicea.
Does Christ inform you as to how to use the internet, Dr. JMR? If not, then he is an outdated master. If so, then I suggest you have simply lost sight of what we are talking about here for the point of persuading to a political system I suspect you know is (at best) second-best.
I like it that the decision to marry is governed by the same reasoning choosing to drink a Coke is governed by.
Are you sure that’s how you want to put this? Because it seems to me that the Bible ransacks this kind of superficial equivocation in every way. Is that really how you read 1 Cor and Eph on marriage? Then I suggest you read them again.How is that not compatible with the Biblical revelation? When Jesus gave His disciples bread and fish, did He also have a particular will about how much and in what proportion they ate it?Wow. Again: let’s make sure we keep the fences for the discussion where they belong. You’re now saying that because the Bible doesn’t give out a portion requirement for every meal you will ever eat, we can reason that man’s will is the chief limiter of government?
Really? You’ll have to do the moral calculus on that one for me. If it’s right to say that context is everything in reading Prov 12:15, find the context that tells that story in a way which somehow comes back to government.
See above. You’re pretty far afield at this point making the meal at the seaside in John about the boundaries of government and man’s liberty.
So then what does love have to do with liberty or government? See: you are escaping the question actually at stake by changing the subject – and the problem is whether man’s ability to choose is a bounding marker for government, not which virtue is ultimate.
If we say Liberty is a “gift” and not a “virtue”, how does that improve any of your minimization of what the Bible actually says?
I am certain it’s an honest mistake, but what I said is, “reasoning it out for ourselves,” which you here argue against as “reason by ourselves”. However, even as an honest mistake, you are pretty much overlooking the Modernism (big “M”) in your own definition of the process. It’s not the minimalistic “cogito ergo sum”, but it’s its red-headed step child: After everyone has taught me, I think for myself.
And that, frankly, is what Deu and Jdges and Proverbs warns us against. So I would argue foundationally that your starting place if anti-Biblical.
{sigh}
So you have to do what is right in your own eyes. Do you really not see how this – even in the classy, suburban, middle-class intellectual party shirt you have dressed it in – is specifically what the Bible warns us against? You can’t see it really?
What did Christ die for, JMR? Seriously – because we sometimes are misinformed? Because sometimes the gap between writer and reader results in differance? It seems to me that this is a significant implication of your reasoning you haven’t worked out.
See: Christ died because that’s the only solution to the problem manifest in “everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” That’s not just true in theory: that’s true in reality. It’s true in fact and by example. It’s not a therapeutic model: it’s a governmental model. It talks about how God rules the whole cosmos.
And that applied to how and why a government must rule. Liberty simply does not evnter into it, except to say that it is because of God’s liberty that we have mercy and peace and grace. Our liberty is a car wreck waiting to happen.
I stipulate the whole thing. Explain how this has an ounce of relevance to the question of government and liberty.I see nothing incompatible with Sacred Scripture in any of these assertions as most seem implied by it. Great.
It’s because you think it’s not very useful for much at all, given what we have read here.
Please: does the Bible inform us regarding how to use the internet? The answer to that question unravels everything you say here – either regarding your view of authority and how it can be gleaned from the Bible, or regarding all the diversions from the actual question you have posted here so far.
March 9th, 2010 | 7:11 pm | #43
JMR:
As a free moral agent, please enforce a speeding law some time this week.
Notice: I didn;t say “obey”. I said “enforce”. Show us how much of a free moral agent you are.
March 9th, 2010 | 7:33 pm | #44
OrthoDJ said:
March 10th, 2010 | 10:10 am | #45
Liberty is not an objective for Government in the Biblical view.
Wow. That must mean I can now hop the fence and take your ox and your ass. Is this a great country or what?
March 10th, 2010 | 11:04 am | #46
Frank,
Thank you and your internal wiring for responding. I know you did the only thing you could do, that you could not have chosen otherwise, but I am thanking you anyway.
March 10th, 2010 | 7:30 pm | #47
So… we are designed WITH liberty, but not FOR liberty. I think that is what I am gathering from the multi-day discussion, and that is where the divergence is happening. JMR constructs a view that takes into account our design, but Frank objects to the notion that it is not an end to itself. Right?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact