GOD TEACHES HIS PEOPLE
(L.F. Schulze)
Sing: Ps. 25 2 (Afrikaans).
Text: Deut 19 :15:
It
is said that the religion of
Why?Because
the above mentioned statement is one of the standard ‘explanations’ of
biblical religion by modern people who are called ‘Secular Humanists’ who
like to give a ‘scientific’ account of religion. They will never
refer to God or the metaphysical world as the source of religion.
Never, ever would you hear the statement that
And
yet … every known religion calls
on one or other form of revelation as its origin!
It
is also said that
So, according to Humanism and Evolutionism God is very much absent. According to these two world views God is scientifically proved to be absent – at least, that is what they try to make us believe.
To
counter the above mentioned ‘scientific claim’ let us look at God teaching
his people. This will lead us to a short analysis of our text, and to the
scriptural and historical contexts of Deut 19: 15.
Note how little attention is paid by theology to God the Teacher, the LORD as Educator (Instructor) of his people. Yet the Bible is full of teaching.
Take
for example the very next verses of Exodus 20. God has revealed his majesty at
And the people stood
afar off, while Moses drew near to the thick darkness where God was . And the
Lord said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the people of
The following chapters are lessons in the building of a civil society, including prescriptions for judges (e.g. Ex 23: 1-6) on how to comport themselves.
Our
text contains a prescription for legal procedure. Here God demands that there
must be multiple witnesses if a charge is to be sustained and a proper verdict
is to be rendered. This practical command is given to
a) Justice means “to give everyone his due”, or, “to give to everyone what he deserves”. God rates the life of men so highly that he exacts the most severe punishment for murder. In other words, the murderer deserves death.
In
order to prevent the shedding of innocent blood the stipulation of Deut.
b) God gives this rule in order that truth would be established. Without being convinced of the truth no judge can give his verdict and no justice can be done. Says Calvin in his commentary on our text:
c) The establishment of the truth is also the aim of the ninth commandment. The ninth commandment, in its turn, is part of the law of love. Because we should love even the accused, no false witness against him or her is permissable. Even more – God specifically demands truth and neighbourly love from a witness towards an accused.
Being part of God’s will for his people of the Old Covenant, it remains equally valid for his people of the New Covenant. It becomes a part of the teaching of Christ. The well known words of Christ in Mt 18: 16 prove the point:
But
if he [i.e. your brother] does not
listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed
by the evidence of two or three witnesses
This text in its context is, as you all know, one of the foundations of canon law. Seeing, however, that we habitually view the ‘church’ as a society of independant individuals, it is of paramount importance to reformulate the sentence in order to bring it in line with the reality of the Old Testament and with the intention of God: This text in its context is one of the foundations of the organic social life of God’s covenant people. By preserving justice, establishing truth, and act in love, they reflect some traits of their heavenly Father, or, as Paul says in Eph 5: 1, becoming imitators of God as beloved children.
By the way, seeing our text and Christ’s words in this context – which is the only scriptural one – the habitual dualism in our thoughts, attitudes and actions (or lack of actions) between the cold justice of ecclesiastical discipline on the one hand, and the commendable brotherly love on the other hand, disappears. This in itself would be commendable because, if we persist in our dualist perception, the false dualism is eventually transferred to the very essence of God Himself. This entails not only a fundamental misunderstanding of the Bible but also a fundamental misunderstanding of God.
In
this way we create our own idol: a ‘god of love’.
Full stop. A ‘god of love’ cannot judge his own beloved son, cannot
punish him instead of others. Consequently the vicarious self-offering of Christ
is denied, and he is seen simply as an example. This is one way in which our
idol can lead us. A second way is to revive the Marcionite heresy of the second
century, as it was current during the nineteen sixties in some circles of the
Let
us look at the positive side of Christ’s words in context. To admonish an
erring brother in the presence of one or two others
(Mt
A note of caution. Don’t jump too easily to the popular conclusion that it belongs to the individual or collective “Christian” thought to determine what love means in different situations. Or, to put it philosophically: it is not the primary task of the Christian(s) to positivize the law of love because firstly, what the law demands is not an unqualified love; secondly, the Bible does not give simply ‘principles’, but concrete prescriptions for the conduct of God’s people; thirdly, the will of God is the norm, not Christian thought, feeling, or sentiment.
A commentator has put it succinctly:
Humanity, as reborn in community (sic) with Christ is a new humanity, whose way through life is not determined by human reason nor by Christian conscience, but by the will of God speaking in his word.
Returning to our text it must be noted that the New Testament contains much more of it than the precipitation in Mt 18. Note, for instance, at Jesus’ baptism the three-fold evidence of the Baptist (Mt 3: 14), of the Spirit (Mt 3: 16), and of the Father (Mt 3: 17); the three witnesses (Peter, James, and John) of the transfiguration (Mt 17: 1-8; cf. also 2 Pet 1: 16-18; 1 John 1:1-3) three-fold are the signs of his coming (Mt 24: 8,9,11) and two women attest to his resurrection (Mt 28).
Do you see it now? Our text is the background music, filling the minds of the evangelists to convey the veracity of their gospel.
It
is said that the religion of
However,
our text is a thorn in the flesh, causing the worldly wisdom of science to be a
sitting duck. The reason for this depressing statement is obvious – there is
no trace of the law of multiple witnesses in any known part of the Sumerian and
Babylonian civilizations. It was unknown in ancient
Apart from the Sumerians, Babilonians, and Egyptians there were also the Greeks and the Romans.
As regards the Greeks: the stipulation was unknown in Greek law. Even more, Greek legal practice was very much the antipole of what is commanded in our text. A historian puts it as follows:
In
later
…
The rhetorical art sought to influence the jury or the judges not by
furnishing
scientific
evidence, but often by mere deception through pseudo-logic.
This was humanist legal practice; a Godless practice; a practice gone bad. Yet, this prevailing ‘spirit’ of the Hellenistic age is supposed to have been the source from which the authors of the New Testament drew their knowledge and religion! This is how far secular, atheist scientific ‘explanations’ want to stretch our faith. Don’t let Secular Humanists ever tell you that they do not believe in miracles. The ‘Helenistic roots’ of the Gospel is one, and they firmly believe it.
Roman law is an exception, or, at least a semi-exception. In the first centuries of the formation of Roman legal practice the stipulation of more than one witness was nowhere to be found. And then suddenly, at the final stages of Hellenism, it appears and is still with us in our courts to this very day. We know the cause and the date of the miraculous appearance of God’s stipulation to Moses in secular Roman jurisprudence.
On
In
a similar manner we sanctioned that no judge should allow the testimony of only
one person to be admitted in any case whatever. We now manifestly sanction that
the testimony of only one witness shall not be heard at all, even though such
witness should be resplendend with the honour of the glorious senate.
The emperor did make an exeption: a bishop would qualify as a single witness. Yet, finally it was not the emperor’s exception, but God’s command that was ingrained in Roman Law. For this we should be thankful, seeing that even bishops can lie.
Guard the command of our text jealously. Allways search for justice, for truth, and for love in social life and in ecclesiastical life. Don’t ever play games with the Church Order; never regard ecclesiastical verdicts, whether about personal or impersonal matters, like the Greeks as a game to see who wins; don’t misjudge canon law as trivial and cold, because, if you do so, you would be as unlike your heavenly Father as you ever can be.
Apply canon law to God’s covenantal people where and when necessary with humilty. To test a case, to give a verdict is one of the best execises to test your own integrity and the true quality of your love.
Above all, remember that you are always confronted by the righteous God, by his Spirit of truth – yes by the triune God who is love, and whose characteristics you should reflect.