Return to Main Page
Site Index

Trouble with drop box click here for help     Printing Instructions for Articles
Back to Index to Gillespie Discussion

Discussion of George Gillespie's Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty
RE: WF: GWS-8 Q&A 
Subject: RE: WF: GWS-8 Q&A
From: Chris Coldwell 
Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 08:12:53 -0500

Mark Johnson has asked that I forward this post. The list software seems to
choke on his address when he sends mail in.  Still looking into this.  His
comments are interspersed between large quotes from GWS-8.
[Begin MAJ post]
->It will be asked, "But how does it appear 
->that these or any other judicial laws of
->Moses do at all appertain to us, as rules to
->guide us in like cases?" I shall wish him who
->scruples this, to read Piscator's appendix to
->his observations upon the 21-23 chapters of
->Exodus, where he excellently disputes this
->question, whether the Christian Magistrate is
->bound to observe the judicial laws of Moses,
->as well as the Jewish Magistrate was. He
->answers by the common distinction, he is
->obliged to those things in the judicial law
->which are unchangeable, and common to all
->nations: but not to those things which are
->mutable, or proper to the Jewish Republic.
->But then he explains this distinction, that by
->things mutable, and proper to the Jews, he
->understands the emancipation of an Hebrew
->servant or handmaid in the seventh year, a
->man's marrying his brother's wife and
->raising up seed to his brother, the forgiving
->of debts at the Jubilee, marrying with one of
->the same tribe, and if there be any other like
->to these; also ceremonial trespasses, as
->touching a dead body, etc. But things
->immutable, and common to all nations, are
->the laws concerning moral trespass, sins
->against the moral law, as murder, adultery,
->theft, enticing away from God, blasphemy,
->striking of parents. Now that the Christian
->Magistrate is bound to observe these judicial
->laws of Moses, which appoint the
->punishments of sins against the moral law,
->he proves by these reasons.

Notice the distinction drawn between those judicial laws that bind the 
magistrate today ("those things in the judicial law which are 
unchangeable, and common to all nations"), and those which do not 
("those things which are mutable, or proper to the Jewish Republic".) He 
calls this "the common distinction." If this distintion was common in 
his day, would it not help us to understand the meaning behind the 
phrase "general equity" used in reference to the Judicial Law in the 
Westminster Confession:

    XIX:4.  Judicial Law of the Old Covenant:

    To them also, as a body politick, he gave sundry judicial laws, 
    which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging 
    any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require 

    [Exodus 21; Exodus 22:1-20; Genesis 49:10; 1 Peter 2:13-4; Matthew 
    5:17; Matthew 5:38-9; 1 Cor 9:8-10].

->(1.) If it were not so, then it is free and
->arbitrary to the Magistrate to appoint what
->punishments he pleases. But this is not
->arbitrary to him, for he is the minister of
->God, (Rom. 13:4) and the judgment is the
->Lord's (Deut. 1:7; 2 Chron. 19:6). And if the
->Magistrate is keeper of both tables, he must
->keep them in such manner as God has
->delivered them to him.

This seems to be the core of GG's argument. The magistrate is God's 
minister, as surely as the church elder. Neither the church elder nor 
the civil magistrate is free to legislate. As surely as the church elder 
has no freedom to legislate ( regulative principle of worship ), so the 
civil magistrate has no freedom to legislate. Instead, his 
responsibility is to execute the wrath of God ( Romans 13:4 ). Civil 
judges are not to give their own judgement, but the Lord's ( 2 Chron 
19.6 ). Notice the continuity between 2 Chronicles 19.6 and Romans 13:4, 
though one is from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament. So, 
if the magistrate is to execute the wrath of God, where is the standard 
of God's wrath to be found? Where but the Judicial law of Israel? 

This opinion is opposed by Calvin, in his Institutes, Book IV, Chapter 
20, Section 16, Unity and Diversity of Laws. Calvin argues that 
punishments must be flexible considering the circumstances. For 
instance, Calvin argues that greater severity of punishment is required 
in time of war. Scripture does not contenance this opinion, since the 
Old Testament judicial law in the Old Testament was static, unchanging 
during war and peace, not dymanic. Calvin also suggests that in a nation 
more prone to a particular vice, that vice should be punished more 
severely than is specified in the Judicial Law. Again scripture does not 
contenance this view, as Old Testament magistrates are given no hint 
they have such leeway.

->(2.) Christ's words (Matt. 5:17), Think not
->that I am come to destroy the Law or the
->Prophets, I am not come to destroy, but to
->fulfill, are comprehensive of the judicial law,
->it being a part of the law of Moses. Now he
->could not fulfill the judicial law, except
->either by his practice, or by teaching others
->still to observe it; not by his own practice,
->for he would not condemn the adulteress (Jn.
->8:11), nor divide the inheritance (Luke
->12:13-14). Therefore it must be by his
->doctrine for our observing it.

What exactly does it mean to "fulfill the law"? George Gillespie here 
refers to Christ's fulfilling of the law, as does the Westminster 
Confession on the Judicial Law. Is it reasonable to assume, as Gillespie 
does, that different parts of the law could be fulfilled in different 
senses?  If so, how did Christ fulfill the Moral Law? the Judicial Law? 
the Ceremonial Law? Does Matthew 5:17 refer to all Old Testament Law? 
(Interestingly, GG's argument here is  similar to Bahnsen's _Theonomy in 
Christian Ethics_.) If it does not refer to all Old Testament Law across 
the board, then what part of the Law does it refer to?

Mark Arvid Johnson

Software Independent: Won't work w/ any software
----
* CMPQwk 1.42 9931 *