Employee Exploitation - What Does The Bible Say?

One of the greatest evils prevailing among job sectors is the evil of injustice against employees. Some examples of employee exploitation are:

1. Not paying salaries or wages in time.


2. Overtasking them and not providing time for necessary rest (Sabbatical Injustice).


3. Drawing them into unjust employment contracts with terms that are selfish and indifferent towards the employee.


4. Paying the employee less than what is justly his/her due.


5. Abusing them and dehumanizing them or treating them in an inhumane manner; humiliating or treating them as inferior.


6. Blackmailing or forcing them to do things against their conscience.


7. Placing them in situations which they are unprepared for and would certainly fail (Uriah's Predicament: David arranged for him to be placed in a position where he would certainly be killed).


8. Demanding directly or indirectly illegitimate and illegal conduct from the employee.


9. Enslaving them.


10. Not relieving them of job with provision when they leave the company or organization.

God is against employee injustice and will hold accountable any employer who fails to do justice to employees. Following are some scriptures by which God declares His law of Justice and how He deals with the workers of iniquity:

Lev 19:13 ' You shall not cheat your neighbor, nor rob [him.] The wages of him who is hired shall not remain with you all night until morning.

Deu 24:14-15 "You shall not oppress a hired servant [who is] poor and needy, [whether] one of your brethren or one of the aliens who [is] in your land within your gates.  Each day you shall give [him] his wages, and not let the sun go down on it, for he [is] poor and has set his heart on it; lest he cry out against you to the LORD, and it be sin to you.

Jer 22:13 "Woe to him who builds his house by unrighteousness And his chambers by injustice, [Who] uses his neighbor's service without wages And gives him nothing for his work.

Mal 3:5 And I will come near you for judgment; I will be a swift witness Against sorcerers, Against adulterers, Against perjurers, Against those who exploit wage earners and widows and orphans, And against those who turn away an alien -- Because they do not fear Me," Says the LORD of hosts.

Jas 5:4 Indeed the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the reapers have reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth.

The Lord of Sabaoth is the Lord of all work and wages of righteousness on the earth and will hold accountable all who oppress those who are placed under them.

Mat 24:45-51
Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his master made ruler over his household, to give them food in due season? Blessed [is] that servant whom his master, when he comes, will find so doing. Assuredly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all his goods. But if that evil servant says in his heart, 'My master is delaying his coming,' and begins to beat [his] fellow servants, and to eat and drink with the drunkards, the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for [him] and at an hour that he is not aware of,  and will cut him in two and appoint [him] his portion with the hypocrites. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

God is especially very serious about providing times of due rest to employees so that they are not burnt out.

Exo 23:12 "Six days you shall do your work, and on the seventh day you shall rest, that your ox and your donkey may rest, and the son of your female servant and the stranger may be refreshed."

The sabbath day was for refreshing and recovery and healing, quite contrary to what the Jews began to think- they opposed even healing on that day. Sabbath was made for man and not man for sabbath.

Providing a proper leave and rest system is binding on employers.

Now, the employer certainly has the right to give to workers more than they deserve. This would be just an act of Grace. 

Mat 20:15 'Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things?'

However, a just and righteous employer will never find a way to give to employees less than their day's wages of labour (The denarius mentioned in the Parable was a laborer's daily wage).

Regarding provision on relieving from job, God specified laws:

Deu 15:13-14 "And when you send him away free from you, you shall not let him go away empty-handed; you shall supply him liberally from your flock, from your threshing floor, and from your winepress. [From what] the LORD has blessed you with, you shall give to him.

Col 4:1 Masters, give your bondservants what is just and fair, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.

Encounter With Rigid Law (Excerpts from The Chronicles of Sin)

Download the Free Book

“Come with me!” Law said and turned to walk.

I followed his quick steps on the sidewalk. From the corner of my eye I could see people pulling out their umbrellas, and there were flashes of lightning and a deep thunder roll. The sky moaned, groaned, rumbled, and turned moist; then, thick drops of water started pattering on my head and hands and my back as I kept my eyes and pace fixed after Law. I didn’t want to miss him. My mind thought, “If he could only get me back to the Bridge; perhaps, there could be some reversal… he certainly knows the way out; or else, how could he reach here…” He seemed to be running now, and I was amazed at his agility as he dodged pedestrians, vendors, benches, and stalls and trotted through complex streets and alleys. The raindrops had grown bigger, heavier, and faster, and people began to run helter and shelter, some going inside the shops for cover from the rain. We entered a dark alley, and I had the feeling that I was being followed, but didn’t dare to look back since I didn’t want to lose sight of the one before me. Suddenly, Law jumped into the right into a dark entrance, and I jumped after him.

We heard voices outside. “Where have they disappeared?” someone cried.

“Why has the sky eaten them up?” another rebuked. “You shouldn’t have lost sight of them!”

“What were YOU doing?”

“They went in here somewhere!”

“Can anyone run through a thick wall?”

I heard a stick tap on the entrance; it seemed like the sound of a tap on a stony wall.

“Somewhere here,” I heard a voice say. Then there were the sounds of fading footsteps. There were cracklings and flashes of light.

“Who are they and why were they after us?” I asked him.

“The Mystery of Lawlessness,” he replied “they are the agents of Sin, the men of iniquity.”

“Why were they after us?”

“To annihilate me.” There was that same sternness and indifference in his eyes. “But, that is impossible; for, I pervade the universe and to try to annihilate me is like trying to cut the branch one is sitting on. I was not running for myself, but for you.”

“For me?” I replied. I was drenched in the rain and now began to shiver as the rags inside began to chew on my flesh. I just wanted to remove and throw them all off. I looked at Law in the flashes of the lightning and was surprised that he was not wet at all. The rain didn’t touch him.

He was looking at me as if reading my thoughts. “I must be quick here,” he said. “As for your curiosity about the walls; they are not the way out.”

“Then, why does their rule book prohibit it?”

“Is it a rule book at all? The rules of this city are all farce; they are meant to only cover the treacherous nature of Sin and Flesh, whom they call here Sarx… They prohibit it to keep the people in deception; there is nothing beyond the walls; it’s an absolute void out there.”

[caption id="attachment_13986" align="alignleft" width="300"] Map of the City of Magic[/caption]

“So what is the way out?” I was grave and was shivering.

He held out his right hand and placed it on my shoulder. Immediately, my clothes dried; but the rags tightened hard over my skin. I almost felt I would cry out in pain; but, I only grimaced and he sternly looked at the pain in my eyes. He removed his hand and began to say,

“I am the Law of sickness and the Law of healing, the Law of rifting and the Law of sealing. I am the Law of the crest and also the Law of the trough, the Law of the rain and the Law of the drought. Wiser and prudent are they who consult me for answers to their problems instead of resorting to the governors of this City; for he who has known Law has found the gemstone that unlocks the mysteries of the universe.” He put his hands on both my arms and caught them in his palms. “Look into my eyes,” he said “and you will find the answer.”

I looked and behold his eyes were windows looking into the black outer space with whirling galaxies. The whirling started slow, then intensified, ending up in a giant explosion, a boom and then there was silence and absolute nothingness. Then, I saw a flood of light that flooded the universe, and could see a boat sailing over the light. I looked closely and could see the face of the boatman. It was Law. He sailed and he sailed rowing with the oar once this way and then that way. The oar looked like a sword. Suddenly, I saw that his oar was ripped away from his hands and flew and was caught by a giant shadow. The shadow grew large and I saw that it grew into a monster that began to swallow up the flood of light. There were shrieks of laughter and shrieks of war. I saw Law standing tall, straight, with outstretched arms while his boat kept drifting in the current of the flood into the mouth of the monster. Then, suddenly the sun appeared like a fiery ball and covered Law so that what appeared now looked like the figure of a man made of fire, and then I saw that they both drifted closer to the mouth of the monster. There were fiery flames darting off from the sun, and as they drew close to the mouth, I saw the figure of fire reach out his hand like a dart of flame and snatch away the sword from the shadowy monster, then plunge it back into the monster’s head. There was a mighty quaking; then the whole flood of light along with the sun and Law gulped into the throat of the shadow, and there was darkness everywhere. Suddenly, there was an explosion of brilliant light and it seemed that the shadow of the monster, which now appeared only for a twinkling of the eye, was fully swallowed up by the exuberant brightness of the light; and, in an instant there was such strong radiance everywhere that I turned my face and closed my eyes with my hands over them. Then, there was absolute silence and I began to hear the pattering of the rain.

“Open your eyes,” he said. I opened my eyes and saw him standing a little distance away.

“What was it all?” I asked.

“The battle between good and evil,” he answered.

“What was the flood of light, the monster, and all of those things that I saw?”

“The flood of light is the City of Light, the boat is the Bridge of Time, the oar is the sword that decides the fate of Time, the monster is the insatiable City of Magic, and the sun is the One. This is the key to the mystery of the present that will unravel your future. Keep this vision in your mind, for when you get to the end of yourself, the One will cover you like a ball of fire and bring you victoriously up to the City of Light. ”

Law and Grace in Church Clothing

There is an increasing trend towards becoming trendy at church, which is not always bad. We must make a distinction between faith and culture; culture is dynamic and flexible; faith has to be absolute. The problem rises when faith attempts to claim elements of culture in order to sacralize them and render them inflexible. When faith tries to do that, then the result is a legalistic religious system that is very fundamentalistic. These issues were earlier discussed here. However, grace is not lawless either. The New Testaments cautions us against those who attempt to turn the grace of God into license for evil (Jude 1:4, NET).

Take the Example of Clothing

Let's begin at the pulpit and one immediately notes at least 5 variants:
1. Those who stick to orthodox robes and cassocks or sacralized color definitions (e.g. white)
2. Those who stress on wearing business suits or traditional suits
3. Those who like to wear designer and more trendy clothes
4. Those who like to wear casuals.
5. Those who are comfortable with two or more of the combinations above
    (a) Those who are comfortable with 1-4
    (b) Those who are comfortable with 2-4
    (c) Those who are comfortable with 1,2,4 but not 3
    (d) Those who are comfortable with 2,3,4 but not 1
    (e) Those who are comfortable with only 2 and 4.
    (f) Those who are comfortable with only 1 and 2.
    (g) Those who stick to 2 and 3 or 3 and 4.

It is not attempted to state here who is right and who is wrong. However, it will become evident to the reader by now that the issue of law and grace is basic even to the kind of dress we choose to wear to church.

Now, while it does seem that the sacralizers (1) are particularly legalistic, the fact is that even those who maintain that only casuals "ought" to be worn to church are not less legalistic. On the other hand, there are those who look at dress in a more instrumental manner, as something to be used to suit some purpose. The wiser instrumentalists also know that dress-forms as cultural forms also communicate meanings and are cautious how they dress up. There are also revolutionaries who dress up to explicitly and blatantly communicate their revolt against some legalistic system. Then, there are the popularists who dress up in order to have a trendy following or to create a brand.

"Do not be conformed to this present world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may test and approve what is the will of God – what is good and well-pleasing and perfect." (Rom.12:2)

"those who use the world as though they were not using it to the full. For the present shape of this world is passing away."(1Cor.7:31)

"to dress in suitable apparel, with modesty and self-control." (1Tim.2:9)

Suitable apparel refers to dress that suits the occasion and is comfortable to wear in the conditions. Modesty implies that the dress we wear must not be embarrassing and must protect shame, not be shameless and exposing privacy; dress must be honorable. Self-control means that our dress must not be provocative or appealing to the flesh but must exhibit self-control, temperance, and sound mind.

Few Characteristics of Mosaic Law

Few of the Characteristics of the Mosaic Law were as follows:

1. Ground: Love. It was based upon the Great Commandment: the Commandment of Love. (Matt.22:40)
2. Subjects: Sinners. The Law was given for the lawless (1Tim.1:9)
3. Function: To Expose Sin. The Law exposed sin, what it is. (Rom.3:20)
4. Internal Witness: Conscience. The human conscience bore witness to the justness of this Law (Rom.2:15). We must remember that the conscience is not just an effect of social learning. It is a justifier and judge in the epistemics of morality. The apprehension there is not just rational, but apodeitical and intuitive. However, when salt loses its saltness, there is nothing with which to salten it again.
5. Ability/Power: To Condemn. The Law could only condemn humans; it could never justify them. (Gal.3:10)
6. Effect: Death. The Law killed; it could never give life (2Cor.3:6; 1Cor.15:56; Rom.7:9,10))


Note: Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not to abolish it (Matt.5:17). In fact, the Commandments of Grace are tougher than the Commandments of the Law (Matt 5:19,20. See Also GRACE ABOVE LAW)

The Moral Basis of Indian Law

Now, while the debate exists in the philosophy of law about the relationship between political laws and the moral law, attempts to base the laws on anything other than the moral law sooner face problems of justifiability. While it may be the case that reductionism of politics to ethics is not totally feasible, resort to anti reductionism is only self-defeating. And, then authority arguments that try to derive validity of laws from higher laws, which in return try to derive their validity from a much higher one (e.g. Hans Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law), will have to strike ceiling at some point ( See Marmor, A. Philosophy of Law, Princeton, 2011). For instance, the judges under Hitler's regime could not be absolved upon the relativist presumption that they were only conforming to some law of a sovereign nation. The question of validity and justice could not be anchored in such "sovereign" authority alone.

However, this doesn't mean that authority doesn't count. In fact, authority does often prescribe laws in many cases, but the laws are only instrumental towards a much larger cause. Thus, we have law-givers such as Solon, Moses, and Manu. However, the validity of the prescriptions are based on a deeper intent. The intent or the spirit of the law is what matters. It also means that where laws fail to serve the intent, they must fade away and give place to the new.

Plato's elaborative study of justice as an ethical virtue in the analogically larger Republic is based on the same understanding that ethics and politics are inseparable. Similarly, his disciple Aristotle didn't see any reason to separate the both. In the Biblical tradition, the entire Mosaic Law was based on the Decalogue or the Ten Commandments, which were the essence of the Law. Jesus pointed out that they all hung on the two Great Commandments: To love God absolutely and to love one's neighbor as oneself. Of course, Paul, later submitted that the Law was only a revealer and a restricter. It revealed human sinfulness and it was meant to restrict the lawless (it was given for the lawless). Jesus pointed out that certain laws (for instance, the law of divorce) were only permissive because of the hardness of human hearts, but didn't reflect the original intent of human creation.

Looking, now, into the Indian Constitution, one asks what is Indian Law based upon ultimately. The Preamble makes the democratic nature of the Republic clear. And, so it is the people's government for sure. But, the moral philosophy is indicated in words like "humanism" and "scientific temper", featured later on under Fundamental Duties. While the temper is scientific, the philosophical ground is humanism and its philosophy of man is condensed in the section called Fundamental Rights. The Law exists to ensure the protection of these fundamental rights of every Indian citizen. Consequently, any law that is inconsistent with these rights is automatically annulled.

The Fundamental Rights are not prescriptions to the people but declarations of humanism. These declarations are prescriptive only to the laws, since the laws are expected to conform to them. Thus, they not only inform but also serve as reference points, as absolute foundation, for the laws. As such, we may refer to them, with regard to humanism, as the intent, or spirit of the laws; perhaps even as the Law of the laws since they serve as the measure of all laws.

But, how do we know that these declarations are true? Perhaps, it is similar to asking about the laws of logic, "How does one know whether they are true?" The answer is: by using them or trying not to use them. One cannot deny them, but then one cannot deny anything without using them. Similarly, one cannot deny the Fundamental Rights without himself losing the rights.

Great Commandment in Apposition to the Great Commission

The Good Samaritan (Wikimedia)

---

Citations:

The Great Commandment is the essential law of the church; the Great Commission is the missional task of the church. The both cannot be confused. To love is a rule and principle that would never cease to be; to preach is an obligation that will soon cease to be. That is one reason why caring for the poor, the orphans, and the widows is considered to be pure religion (James 1:27). The liberational causes and the cause of justice and mercy are principle causes – things that the church cannot silently ignore when it has the power not to ignore. To love one’s neighbor as oneself is an essential obligation. In most cases, one may not preach but still be a Christian, and draw others through a silent conformity to the essential Christian principle of love (1Peter 3:1). Being precedes manifestation.

The ethical rule must not be confused with the ecclesiastical task. To love is not a task; it is an essential principle. Jesus said that His disciples will be known by the love they have for one another (John 13:35). To love is not a mission that Jesus has committed to the church – to take care of the poor, orphans, and widows was a moral obligation required even in the Old Testament....

The ecclesiastical task must flow out of the essential ethic. Love is the motive of evangelism; evangelism is not the motive of love. The messenger cannot shirk off his essential obligation to love and merely preach the Gospel for the sake of a job to be done. Jesus considered the caring responses of the Good Samaritan as more important than the temple services of the Levite and the priest. The essential obligation to love was more important than even the ecclesiastical office. In essence, one evangelizes because and out of love; one doesn’t love in order to evangelize. Therefore, social service with the aim of evangelization is hypocrisy. However, where evangelism exists, social service is bound to co-exist.

To posit the principle of operation as the goal of the operation is a confusion of identity. Love is the principle of which evangelization is only a time-bound goal – though covering eternity. Certainly, there are also things other than evangelization that the principle of love, commanded under the new covenant, covers. However, evangelization is core outreaching of the principle of love, for it aims at an everlasting result – the salvation of persons. As such it is the essential concern of being (against death for life) in opposition to the temporal concerns of the secular. Evangelization answers the ultimate existential concern of being-towards-life.

The task only exists because the law of being is violated. Mission exists because love is confused. Therefore, reconciliation is the prime goal. Spiritual reconciliation is lame where the pictures of equality, equity, compassion, and justice are not concretely visible. The mission lies lame because the law of being remains violated (both vertically towards God and horizontally towards fellow humans). Love towards God is the attitude and act of glorifying God; it follows love of one’s neighbor (brother and sister) as oneself (1John 4:20-21).

--Marbaniang, ("Globalization and Gospelization", Paper presented at Mission Consultation, Pune, January 2014.)

---

There is...no better time to explore the relationship between making disciples and living as disciples in the world, or the Great Commission and the Great Commandment....

At their simplest levels, the Great Command-ment and the Great Commission follow the distinction between law and gospel. A young lawyer asked Jesus, "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets" (Matt. 22:36-40). Jesus was simply repeating Moses (Lev. 19:18; Deut. 6:5). The second is like the first not only because it summarizes the second table of the law (love for neighbor), but because love for God is inextricable from love of fellow image-bearers.

Of course, the Great Commission is also a command, but it differs from the Great Commandment in several ways. First, they differ in their subjects. The Great Commandment is given to all people in every time and place, while the Great Commission is given to the church alone. Second, they differ in their mandate. The Great Commandment calls all people to love God and neighbor, while the Great Commission calls the church to make disciples of Christ. Third, they differ in their methods. The Great Commandment is natural, inscribed on the human conscience in creation as part of the image of God, and these natural precepts are codified and enforced by social institutions (the family, various voluntary associations, and the state). The gospel, however, is not something that all people know inwardly and innately; it's a surprising announcement that must be proclaimed....

Collapsing the gospel into the law and the Great Commission into the Great Commandment, many Christians today speak of our "living the gospel," even "being the gospel," with gratuitous appeals to participate with God in his redeeming and reconciling activity through their good works. However, this rhetoric is in danger of advancing another gospel, which is no gospel but rather the summary of the law....

Paradoxically, it is only when the church is doing something other than engaging in social justice missions that it actually shapes members "to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with [their] God" (Mic. 6:8).

...................................................

Distinction without Separation
The Cultural Mandate
Key Verse: Genesis 1:28: "And God blessed them. And God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
Activities: Family, Culture-Making and Renewal, Art, Music, Commerce, Politics

The Great Commandment
Key Verse: Matthew 22:37-40: "And he said to him, 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."
Activities: Hospitality, Visiting the Sick, Feeding the Poor, Caring for the Needy

The Great Commission
Key Verse: Matthew 28:19-20: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."
Activities: Preaching, Word and Sacrament Ministry, Discipline, Discipleship, Catechesis

...................................................
--Michael S. Horton (Justification and Justice: The Great Commission and the Great Commandment, Modern Reformation, Issue: "Social Justice: Social Gospel?" Sept./Oct. 2011 Vol. 20 No. 5 Page number(s): 14-19, 26. Accessed Sept 29, 2014). Michael Horton is the J. Gresham Machen professor of apologetics and systematic theology at Westminster Seminary California (Escondido, California)

---

Our criticism of Transformation Theology is not directed against its call to the social responsibility of Missions. We are in no way against works of love, but well against the massive shift of priority from preaching to social responsibility; for by this the Gospel threatens to become an ideological programme. We grant the theologians of Transformation their justified concern that conversion, change of mind and discipleship should have social, ethical and structural consequences. But we oppose their projected impression that man is the “maker” of the kingdom of God and that his salvation would be, as it were, made manifest only through his deeds. This would amount to a new “salvation by works”.

...Today, evangelical missions are in the same danger if they embrace programmes which are called “holistic”, “incarnatory” or, as mentioned already, “transforming” mission. Here the concerns for the physical and social well-being of man threaten to outshine eternal salvation.

--("World Evangelization or World Transformation?", International Christian Network, Tübingen, Pentecost 2013)

Grace Above Law

One important thing that we must remember about God's grace is that the Grace of God in Jesus Christ has not nullified the Law of God. Grace is not against God's Law. In fact, Jesus said that He came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it (Matt.5:17).

The commandments of Grace are tougher and more demanding than the commandments of the Law. The Bible tells us that the Law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came with Jesus Christ (John 1:17). Jesus ushered in the era of Grace. Not that grace was absent in the Old Testament; but that grace could only be available even in the Old Testament because of the Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the earth. And, when Christ came Grace came in reality, for until then everything was only shadows (Col.2:17). Therefore, it says, "Grace and truth came with Jesus Christ".

The commandments of Grace, therefore, supersede the commandments of the Law. Grace teaches us true righteousness (Tit.2:11,12; Matt.5:20).

Thus, certain things that were allowed in the Old Testament (like divorce, swearing, polygamy, and  tit-for-tat ethics) are not allowed anymore in the New Testament (Matt.5:31,34, 38,39). Most of these things were allowed because of the hardness of human hearts, but God never originally intended them so (Matt.19:8). However, in the Age of Grace when His Grace transforms our hearts, we are called to love our neighbor as ourselves and to pray for our enemies, we are called not to resist evil people but turn our left cheek to someone who slaps on our right (i.e. severely insults and humiliates us). The demands of Grace are higher than the demands of the Law.

The commandments of Grace spring from the spirit of the Law not the letter of the Law. Thus, while the OT command only said, "Do not murder" and "Do not commit adultery", the command of Grace tells us to not even get angry with our brother without cause and tells us looking at a woman lustfully is equal to committing adultery (Matt.5:22,27).

The essence of the command of Grace is Love (Rom.13:8,10; Gal.5:14; James 2:8).

The good news is that this Love is poured into our hearts through the Spirit in the New Testament; therefore, the commandments of God are no longer burdensome or impossible (Rom.5:5; 2Cor.12:9; 1 John 5:3).

Civil Disobedience, Law, and Justice

CIVIL OBEDIENCE obligatorily relates to Justice. Civil obedience is mandatory when the laws are just. However, civil obedience is not mandatory when laws are unjust. In fact, civil disobedience is obligatory when laws are unjust. The officers and judges during Hitler's reign might have argued that they were obeying their laws; however, since those laws were not just; therefore, they were guilty of crimes against humanity. Similarly, we find civil disobedience in the Bible when Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego refused to bow before the golden image (Dan. 3:14-16), when Daniel opened the windows and openly prayed in defiance to a law prohibiting the same (Daniel 6:10), and when the Apostles refused the authorities' command to stop preaching the Gospel.

But Peter and John replied, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard." (Act 4:19-20 NIV)

The Formula:

• Law+Justice+Obedience = Peace & Order
• Law-Justice+Obedience = Crime & Destruction
• Law+Justice+Disobedience = Anarchy
• Law-Justice+Disobedience  = Resistance

Evidently, the state of civil disobedience is a state of unrest and struggle. There can only be peace when the laws are just and people obey just laws. However, civil disobedience to unjust laws certainly signifies peace within the heart, where resolve submits to conscience. (Rom.2:15) When, from the fountain of a pure conscience, just actions follow, peace prevails within, and peace flows without.

Great peace have they who love your law, and nothing can make them stumble. (Psa 119:165 NIV)

However, when the heart is allowed to be hardened in compliance to godless authority and laws, judgment comes (2Chr. 36:14-16).

---

Some Quotes

“One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”
― Martin Luther King Jr.

“An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law”
― Martin Luther King Jr.

"Civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the state has become lawless or corrupt."
― Mahatma Gandhi

"Civil disobedience is the assertion of a right which law should give but which it denies...Civil disobedience presupposes willing obedience of our self-imposed rules, and without it civil disobedience would be cruel joke....Civil disobedience means capacity for unlimited suffering without the intoxicating excitement of killing....Disobedience to be civil has to be open and nonviolent....Disobedience to be civil implies discipline, thought, care, attention...Disobedience that is wholly civil should never provoke retaliation....Non-cooperation and civil disobedience are different but [are] branches of the same tree call Satyagraha (truth-force)...."
― Mahatma Gandhi

“Colorful demonstrations and weekend marches are vital but alone are not powerful enough to stop wars. Wars will be stopped only when soldiers refuse to fight, when workers refuse to load weapons onto ships and aircraft, when people boycott the economic outposts of Empire that are strung across the globe. ”
― Arundhati Roy, Public Power in the Age of Empire

“If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law”
― Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience and Other Essays

“I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good.”
― Martin Luther King Jr., The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Slavery

Slavery is the practice of owning slaves. Though God permitted it in the Old Testament (See Permissive Will), He legislated laws to protect the dignity and individuality of the slave as a human created in God's image. According to the New Testament principle, however, slavery is inhuman, immoral, and evil.

People sometimes bemoan the fact that slavery was permitted in the Old Testament; but, what one needs not fail to recognize is that it was permitted for only a liberating purpose and with certain limitations. It was both limited and liberating.

Deuteronomy 15:12-18 underscores at least three laws about the practice of slavery:

1. It was to be VOLUNTARY
The Law specifies, - If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself.. (Deut.15:12, NIV)
It was not to be a forced bond-labor. It had to be voluntary. When a person would be in so much debt that he couldn't pay it back anymore, he usually would prefer selling himself as a slave. In other cultures, such slavery would become permanent and for generations. But, the Bible didn't permit that, unless the servant voluntarily willed to remain with the master (Deut.15:16-17; Exo.21:5,6).

2. It was to be TEMPORARY
It says that when one has served for 6 years, in the 7th year - you must let him go free. (Deut.15:12; Exo.21:2)

Slavery couldn't spill over into the 7th year, which was the year of emancipation and rest. In that way, though a slave would not receive any hire wages for six years, except the food and basic necessities he needed, his debts would ALL BE PAID within just 6 years.

3. It was to be EMANCIPATORY
On the 7th year, the slave was not only released; the Law says, "And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed. Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you." (Deut.15:13,14)

The 7th year not only liberated the slave from ALL his debts, it was also the year of blessing for him. He could start his own business with all that he received from his master!

Protective Laws
1. For an escapee. There was a law that provided security for a slave who escaped from his master. It stipulated that the escapee slave should not be returned to his master, but must be allowed to live freely. (Deut.23:15,16).
2. For women. There were special laws for women that protected them from being exploited and dehumanized (Exo.21:7-11).

The Law again and again reminded the children of Israel that they were slaves in the land of Egypt (Deut.5:15; 15:15; 16:12; 24:18,22). Their redemption was an act of divine grace and mercy; and, they had no rights to deny that privilege to any human being at any cost (Matt.6:12).

That is why David said - I know, O LORD, that your laws are righteous- -  (Psalm 119:75).

In modern times as always, slavery is certainly an evil- in the Old Testament, it was only permitted as a lesser evil though with a seed of freedom implanted in it. However, today there are other more wicked ways in which people try to make slaves of people for life. When products are sold by using addictive mechanisms, when employees are forced into helpless subjection through manipulative methods, when banks and businesses force people into eternal and violent debts, these are more evil than the slavery that was present in olden days.

Bond-labor and forced bond-labor must be opposed; especially, bond-labor of kids: it is wickedness because the kids are innocent and not indebted to anyone: in fact, the world is responsible for the kids- welfare. When a state or nation incurs unjustifiable debts that are left unpaid, it forces its posterity into debt for what they didn't choose to have. Such practices are unethical for every reason and must be opposed.

Casting Lots

There are only three instances where casting of lots is mentioned in the New Testament: (1) When Zacharias’ turn came, by lot, to minister in the temple (Luke 1:9), (2) When the soldiers cast lots to divide the garments of Jesus (Matt 27:35), and (3) When Matthias was chosen by lot to take the place of Judas Iscariot as one among the Twelve (Acts 1:26). Following that, there is no mention of casting lots anymore in the Bible.

Scholars believe that this is so because we live in the Age of the Holy Spirit and every decision after Pentecost comes from Him.

In the Old Testament, however, God did command His people to decide a number of things on the basis of lots. For instance, the Scapegoat on the Day of Atonement had to be chosen by lot (Lev.16:8) and the Promised Land had to be divided among the tribes by lot (Num.26:55). In the book of Jonah we find that lots were cast to determine who the culprit was, and the lot rightly fell on Jonah. Lots were cast in serious matters where human capacities were exhausted and the only resolve was an appeal to the Higher Authority. It could never be done lightheartedly or with unbelief. The ones who cast the lots to make some decision couldn’t choose to doubt. Faith was integral to the whole procedure. They couldn’t, for instance, cast the lot and then say “Oh, let’s do it again. May be this just couldn’t be right. Anyway, it’s all a game of chance.” No, chance was a meaningless term here. Nothing happened by chance for someone who had faith. God was the one who held every element in the universe together. Therefore, it was declared: “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.” (Prov.16:33).

The Old Testament was a world of shadows. Everything, including the material blessings and the various laws, pointed towards a higher reality: the sacrifices pointed to Christ, the Promised Land points to the True Rest, the material blessings point to the eternal inheritance of the saints. In the New Testament, faith and indecision can’t go together. If there is indecisiveness, we must ask God for wisdom (regarding what must be done) and the Holy Spirit is there to guide us (James 1:5). There is no need to cast lots anymore when it comes to matters of knowing God’s will. One must ask with faith without wavering and God will answer. In the same manner that one couldn’t doubt the decision of the lot in the Old Testament, one cannot doubt the guidance of the Holy Spirit and His control over our affairs when we surrender ourselves to Him in obedience to His Word. But, someone who wavers and keeps doubting and thinking “Oh, this might not be the right thing” and seeks other ways like trying to know what others think about this or that will never receive any wisdom from God. He will remain uncertain and doubt the whole thing, even if he did make a decision.

Of course, a carnal or an unspiritual person cannot understand the language of the Spirit.

Abstaining from Eating Blood

In the Jerusalem Council, mentioned in Acts 15:20, one of the things that the apostles by the Holy Spirit made mandatory to abstain from was eating of blood. The Old Testament commandment applied even in the New Testament. God gave two reasons for abstaining from blood (Leviticus 17:11):
1. Life is in the blood, so we are prohibited to eat blood. That life is in the blood is a scientific fact that has not changed even today. So, the law applies.
2. God had given it to us upon the altar to make atonement for our souls, for it is blood that makes atonement for the soul, the Bible says. In the New Testament, God did just that, He offered His blood on the Altar. The blood belongs to the altar exclusively, and so we are called to abstain from it.

Philosophical Roots of Law and Politics

About four decades ago, the American theologian Harvey Cox, had already defined secularization as an inevitable process.[1] Almost a decade prior to that, Bryan Wilson, in his book Religion in Secular Society (1966) had considered it to be irreversible.[2] However, history has a different tale to say. The scepter of philosophy is hard to cast away. Somewhere or the other it holds its reins and pulls history on. In the 1920s a small group of scientists, mathematicians, sociologists, and economists, (not philosophers) had gathered together in Vienna to develop a unified philosophy that embraced science and attempted to destroy philosophy.[3] Their new philosophy came to be known as Logical Positivism. It, of course, suffered a natural death soon. But, what the empiricists then did not realize was that philosophy may be philosophically denied but not scientifically annihilated. In less than a decade, the world saw the angry reins of philosophies on the chariots of the nations as political philosophies collided, clashed, and combatted with weapons that science had produced to shock humanity with the Second World War. There had to be some other stronger ideology that had to deal with the issue of justice corrupted by corrupt philosophies such as Nazism that tried to base themselves on the evolutionary model provided by the scientific community. The Nuremberg Trial tried Judges who had committed the crime of obeying the unjust laws of their own regime. Some legal philosophy, and not science, had to decide the question of right or wrong during these trials. The definitions and directions were laid down in the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal.[4] The Trial, of course, was subject to much criticism; however, it did open a new chapter in legal history when it defined justice not merely as a domestic political affair but in relation to the notion of natural human rights; thus, the head of a state can’t just merely dictate any law under the pretense of positive lawmaking; he was accountable now to the international community. This also entailed individual responsibility of any person whosoever, irrespective of the laws prescribed by a particular nation. Thus, the ILC’s Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind declared in Article 2(1):[5]

A crime against the peace and security of mankind entails individual responsibility,

Article 3 continues:

An individual who is responsible for a crime against the peace and security of mankind shall be liable to punishment . . .

A deeper probe would question the basis of such a law that claimed superior and absolute status above all laws and demanded conformity to it. From the scientific perspective, didn’t the principle of struggle for existence and survival of the fittest look quite natural? In that sense, wasn’t Nazism quite close to nature? But, what science defined to be a principle of nature and what philosophy recognized to be just and right were two different things. The very reversal of the evolutionary natural principle is uplifted as the virtue of greatness: viz., benevolence and compassion. However, only a philosophically valid method can determine if a philosophical contention is tenable.

The above elaboration was essential as there is a tendency among educators to neglect the primary things altogether and focus on more tangible areas that cater tangible results only. However, the age long scheme cannot be broken so easily. The practical man can’t go on for long without the theoretical man; and, there certainly will come a point when the practical man will have to turn to the theoretical man. The British thinker G. K. Chesterton, over a century ago, had dedicated a whole chapter to this issue in his book What’s Wrong With the World (1910). He called it, “Wanted: An Unpractical Man”. One can’t talk of politics without considering the philosophical roots. Chesterton’s observation is appropriate:

Now our modern politics are full of a noisy forgetfulness; forgetfulness that the production of this happy and conscious life is after all the aim of all complexities and compromises. We talk of nothing but useful men and working institutions; that is, we only think of the chickens as things that will lay more eggs. Instead of seeking to breed our ideal bird, the eagle of Zeus or the Swan of Avon, or whatever we happen to want, we talk entirely in terms of the process and the embryo. The process itself, divorced from its divine object, becomes doubtful and even morbid; poison enters the embryo of everything; and our politics are rotten eggs.

---

[1] Harvey Cox, The Secular City (New York: Macmillan Pub. Co. Inc., 1975) p. 18.
[2] Néstor Da Costa, “Secularization and Sacralization,” http://www.religion.ucsb.edu/projects/summerinstitute/alumni.html, Accessed on November 27, 2012.
[3] Kelly James Clark (ed), Philosophers Who Believe (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1993), p.11
[4] Online Text available at Yale Law School Lillian Goldman Law Library, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/imtconst.asp. Accessed on November 28, 2012.
[5] As cited by Christian Tomuschat, “The Legacy of Nuremberg”, Journal of International Criminal Justice 4 (2006), (Oxford University Press, 2006), p.841. http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu. Accessed on 28 November 2012.

Q&A: The Laws of Moses Look So Hard and Inhumane!

Ques: The laws of Moses look so hard and inhumane. He allowed social evils such as slavery and revenge. See for instance theses verses:
"if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do." (Ex.21:7)
"eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" (Ex.21:24)


Ans: When Jesus came, He said that He came to bring the Law of Moses to perfection (Matt.5:17). He didn't come to annihilate it but to bring it to perfection. It certainly implies that the Old Testament Law was not in a perfect state. Jesus said that Moses gave that Law because of the hardness of human hearts (Matt.19:8). The Old Testament itself stressed the importance of Mercy as the spirit of the Law; Jesus quoted it when He taught the key to the right practice of the Law:
"But if you had known what this means, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice,'you would not have condemned the guiltless." (Matt.12:7)

He highlighted the spirit of the Law:
Jesus said to him, ""You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." (Mat 22:37-40)

And His Sermon on the Mount laid the foundation for Christian Morality; for instance:
--You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca, ' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. (Mat 5:21-22)
--You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Mat 5:27-28)
--You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Mat 5:38-39)

The Old Covenant Law was not bad. But, the problem was with the human heart and its hardness:
"For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin." (Rom 7:14)

When Jesus came, He brought the Law to its perfect state through another Covenant, which He called the New Covenant:

Heb 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.
Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.
Heb 8:13 In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

The Law Against Deliberate Murder (Exodus 21:12-14)

THE BOOK

The passage is taken from the book of Exodus which forms the second book in the Pentateuch. The name “Exodus” comes from the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament and means “exit” or “departure”. This name was also retained by the Vulgate, the Latin version, by the Jewish author Philo, and by the Syriac version. The name of the book in Hebrew is taken from the first words of the text: “And these are the names of” (We’elleh Shemoth) or simply Shemoth. The Pentateuch (i.e., “the five books) is in the Hebrew known as Torah, which means “Law”, “instruction”, “teaching”.[1]

AUTHOR
The traditional belief is that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible (i.e., the Pentateuch). The NT writers believed that to be true (Lk.2:22-23; Jn.7:19; Acts 3:22).[2]

DATE AND PLACE OF WRITING
The date of writing can be inferred to between Moses’ eightieth birthday and his one hundred and twentieth birthday, when he died, just as the wilderness wandering was drawing to a close (Deut. 34:7).[3] It was, then written in the wilderness, about 1406 B.C.

RECEPIENTS
Without any doubt, the Israelites in the wilderness on their way to Canaan.

THE CONTEXT
The passage is from the section called as the Book of the Covenant (Ex.20:22-23:33). The people of Israel are on the way to Canaan after a miraculous deliverance from the bondage of Egypt. They have seen the hand of God in all these and have seen it as more powerful than the gods of Egypt. God went before them and continued to provide them with bread, meat, and water. They had also fought a battle with the Amalekites and won it (17:8-13). About seven weeks after the Exodus (Ex.19:1) they arrived at the desert of Sinai, “the desert in front of the mountain”. This desert is called er-Raha (meaning “the palm [of a hand]”) in that it is a flat plain about five thousand feet above sea level and stretches over four hundred acres almost like an amphitheater with additional areas in adjoining valleys. It is a matter of controversy as to which mountain Moses refers to when he speaks of the Mount Sinai. Most scholars prefer to identify Sinai with Gebel Musa because of its relation to the plain (20:18 “they stayed at a distance”) and because of its imposing granite formations.[4] There in that mountain God gave to Moses the Ten Commandments and commanded him to speak to the Israelites what came to be known as the Book of the Covenant. The whole mountain was enveloped with smoke and quaked greatly; there were thundering and lightning and an increasing sound as of a trumpet. Here God gave His people a law, so that they may not become lawless and depraved, a law that distinguished them from the rest of the people of the world, in that this law proceeded and was given by God Himself by revelation. And the foremost commandment was to worship YHWH God alone and bow down before no other gods. This Book of Covenant and adherence to it would determine a lot the standing of the Israelites in relation to their God. It should be noted that the Law is for the people of Israel, as a community, nation, and people.

THE TEXT
"¹²Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. ¹³However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate. ¹⁴But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death.” (Exo 21:12-14, NIV)

EXEGESIS

The Crime           :               Homicide
Penalty                 :               Death

The law demands that the murderer be “surely” put to death. The KJV, Amplified, NASV, and the NIV include the word “surely”; whereas, the RSV omits the word.

The presence of the word “surely” is significant; it means “without any question or doubt,” “certainly”. The meaning the author intended may all be in this one word.

1. “The murderer must without doubt be put to death” would reflect the law of retaliation embedded in every man. It may even be called knowledge a priori (before any experience) though it seems and finds its expression after the experience. The evidence may be traced to the account of Abel’s murder and Cain’s fear of seeming retaliation (Gen.4:14); though there may be variance in interpretations. But the law is made evident in Gen.9:4-6; the reason is given, “man man made in God’s won image” – the crime of homicide is against even the desire of God: that men be fruitful and increase in number. If verse 12 were understood in this line [with an understanding of God’s covenant with Abraham and as such the importance of the law in the community of Israel] the meaning may be inferred as: “¹²That life must be paid with life is axiomatic and without doubt certain, the murderer must surely be put to death.  ¹³But…” and what would follow would be an answer to the ethical question: “How much is a man guilty and responsible for an offence?” “Who would actually deserve capital punishment?” It should be noted that this Law endorses capital punishment.

Verse 12 then may mean a statement of veracity and endorsement, of non-contradiction, of the law embedded in the very nature of man. The law is presented in an unconditional way but its applications to specific situations and thus its relativity will be discussed in verses 13,14.

1. The second approach to construe the verse can be with reference to the existing law codes of the then existing people groups and the significance of the law in the Israelite community.

One thing in common among the already existing law codes of the people around Israelites at that time, as distinct to the Mosaic Law Code, is their overstatement or understatement of penalty for crime. The Mosaic Law Code prescribes the principle of equal justice for all. That is, the penalty must match the crime. The penalty must not be more than the crime merits; thus, life is to be repaid with life. Secondly, and most importantly is the relationship of the Law and the people with God. God, in contrast to the heathenic tribes, is the source of this law for His people. The Law, therefore, is intended to fulfill His purpose and will, in contrast to the autonomous law systems of the pagans.[5] God’s word is authoritative and infallible: man’s reason, finite and fallible.

Then verse 12 would be the statement of God’s will and true justice. The people of Israel as a whole will be held accountable for the implementation of justice. There must be no trifling, exaggerating, and carelessness concerning the Law. The murderer, for the sake of justice (not merely consequences), ought to die and must surely be put to death. And thus keeping justice (as God’s approval and Will – He is the Ultimate Judge) in mind, the following verses 13,14 would be what God describes as the implementation of this true law of justice to people and situations: Where does it apply? To whom?

NOTE: The word “strikes” is relative to the dignity value of the person in view; so that if a man strikes his parents he is liable to death (v 15), which is the just penalty in correspondence to the act and the dignity value of the man to the parent.

Verse 13 and 14, in contrast to verse 12, can be referred to as casuistic law. That is, instead of making a generalization, a casuistic law addresses itself to a specific situation.[6] The condition is seen in the word “if”.

The two key phrases are: “did not lie in wait for him” (NASV), “does not do it intentionally” (NIV); and “God let him fall into his hand” (NASV), “God lets it happen” (NIV).

Unintentionality: “Additional expressions of unintentionality are found in Numbers 35:22-23: “unintentionally” (belosediyyah, lit., “without design”); “without seeing” (beloreo’th, “without knowledge”).[7] A murder that is caused unintentionally does not fall under the law of equal retaliation, as a matter of fact consideration; for murder to be murder fist must proceed “out of the heart” and be intentional (cp. Mark 7:21). The will of man as involved in a n action and, thus, his responsibility to the act is given importance here.

God lets it happen (weha ‘elohim innah leyado) is an event beyond human control (“an act of God”).[8] The meaning is that what is done unintentionally is not crime in fact (indeed); but is what God lets to happen (not what chances to happen—that’s human perspective); and therefore, God gives the solution to this situation. It should be noted that this law is much expanded in Numbers 36:10-33, where in v.27 we see that if the “avenger of blood” (it may be the victim’s relative or friend) slays the murderer (though the murder be unintentional) finding him without the city of refuge, the place God has designated for him, he will not be guilty of murder. For the avenger, as it can be construed, would be functioning according to the law of retaliation triggered by his own emotions and reasons; and thus from his own perspective the act would be justified: for the Law prescribes the solution, safety is only in the place God has designated, and outside the city of refuge the man is responsible for his life—he has not kept himself under the limits of security. The person must remain in that place for protection until duly tried and if found to be guilty, he will be handed over to death (v.14).

NOTE: Moses’ concept of the will of man and the sovereign will of God. What happens not by man’s intentions happens by the will of God; and yet man is responsible for the act (in the sense that if he is slain without the city of refuge, he who slays it for vengeance is not guilty of his blood). But where an act is intentionally done, the man becomes directly responsible and is accountable to the court of God.

Two key words are “schemes” and “deliberately”. This is an inference to cold-blooded murder; well-plotted act of crime. That that murderer is dangerous to society is self-evident, but even more is the kind of nature he inherits, the nature of the crime, and his total rebellion against the will of God. This kind of man has no reverence, neither for God nor for his fellowmen. He must be eliminated.

Secondly, this kind of murderer must not be let go without justice being done. The avenger will slay him so that the law of retaliation be fulfilled.

The phrase “take him away from My altar” can be interpreted as an expression of God’s hatred for such kind of crime, God’s intolerance of the presence of such criminal near His altar. The altar was a place of protection to which the accused would flee for protection (cp. 1Kgs.1:50). “No sanctuary—even at the altar itself (cf.1Kgs.1:51; 2:28)—was to be given to the deliberate murderer.”[9]

The application of this passage will become much easier to a Christian with an understanding that the Law was for the people of Israel as a nation and community, and so was inevitable for justice on earth, peace on earth. The New Testament perspective, however, is a greater one: the avenger is no longer man but God (Rom.12:19). The concept of forgiveness and repaying evil with good (Mat.6:12; Rom.12:17,21) is of greater order since its aim is heaven, its kingdom. The Christian looks up and therefore doesn’t demand his rights.

Secondly, the attitude and nature of forgiveness and good-willing is a reflection of God’s sovereign act of mercy and forgiveness through Christ. The Law given to the Jews was not wrong so that it should be replaced by a new order: the Law was good, good for peace in society, but its significance must be seen in relevance to their society, religion and faith—there must be an elimination of evil so that evil may not increase. In the Church this law is present but with an higher order of understanding based on the cross of Christ. The trespasser will be counseled if the act is in ignorance or because of immaturity, and if still he doesn’t repent, must be excommunicated from the Church. There should, however, be an attitude of forgiveness and acceptance in case the man repents and returns. But when it comes to acts of direct rebellion against the Law of God (e.g. deliberate murder of innocent persons or anyone without the approval of God), the person is to be excommunicated and handed over to Satan (note: not “put to death”). God will be the judge in this matter and not human reason. For justice is what God wills as the Judge. The Christian is accountable to the Court of God first, but also to the law of government, secondly. In the vocabulary of a Christian, the words “justice”, “vengeance”, “penalty”, “forgiveness”, “mercy”, etc  are, therefore, founded in the love of God through the Cross and aim at the kingdom of heaven, the salvation of souls, and the Judgment Day of God (Mat.7:1,12; Rom.13:1-14).

© Domenic Marbaniang, October 1998.

 

[1] The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, V.2. (Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), p.287
[2] Ibid, p.288
[3] The Expositor’s…, p.288
[4] Ibid, p.415
[5] Victor P. Hamilton, Handbook on the Pentateuch (Michigan, Baker Book House, 1995), pp.218-221
[6] Ibid, pp.211-212
[7] The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, p. 432
[8] Ibid, p. 432
[9] Ibid, p.432

 ________________________________________________________

Comment by Instructor, Dr. Bill Pankey:

Does the N.T. teach the death penalty? Rom.13:1ff

Romans 13:1-5

(1)  Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.
(2)  Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.
(3)  For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.
(4)  For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.
(5)  Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience' sake.