And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said
unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. And the fear of
you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every
fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes
of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth
shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But
flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. And
surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will
I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I
require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be
shed: for in the image of God made he man. (Gen. 9:1-6).
COMMON GRACE ARGUMENT:
According to some, this was the first time
in history that human government was set up and ordained by God—and that as “a
gift of common grace” …
(I)
Robert C. Harbach (1914-1996)
[Source: Studies in the Book of Genesis (RFPA, 2001), p. 179]
What is instituted here for the first time is not government but the sword-power. Government had already been instituted in Genesis 1:26, 28. Human government was first centered in the fathers of families; then when families multiplied, in the heads of clans; then in the patriarchs; in the heads of tribes, and finally in the rulers of the nation. It was Abraham Kuyper, holding that there was no government before this Noahic period, who contended that now (9:1-6) it was for the first time introduced as a “common grace” in the covenant. Government was intro duced on account of sin, and its establishment became a common grace to all men under government. But it was government which originated with the creation, so that it goes back to the very beginning of man. It was the sword-power which at this point was instituted, and that on account of sin.
This theory that government appears here for the first time can be traced back to 1831, in the teaching of John Nelson Darby, founder of the Plymouth Brethren church and modern Dispensationalism. It is also found in the Keil and Delitzsch Commentary (1864) on the Pentateuch, but of course, Kuyper, Keil and Delitzsch are not dispensationalists. This view, that government began in the third or Noahic dispensation, as it is called by dispensationalists, was also the view of Dr. C. I. Scofield, of the Scofield Reference Bible. But from the beginning, Adam was king-servant, under God, head and king of the whole earthly creation. The spiritual government of Christ’s kingdom is controlled by His Word and culminates in the brief reign of Antichrist, the Man of Sin. The one government is characterized by grace; the other by sin, and that as common as can be.
-----------------------------------------------------
(II)
Homer C. Hoeksema (1923-1989)
[Source: Unfolding Covenant History—Volume 2: From the Flood to Isaac (RFPA, 2001), pp. 19-23]
We must immediately distinguish carefully between the institution of government and the institution of the sword-power. The two are by no means the same, though they have not infrequently been confused. It is a rather general and popular conception that at this point in history the Lord institutes government. It is further maintained that government is an institution that was established and exists for the sake of, and on account of, the presence of sin in the human race. Frequently the idea is advanced that this institution of government, which according to this theory did not exist before the flood, was now established as a matter of common grace so that the progress and development of sin might be restrained …
We should notice, first, that in Genesis 9:6 there is no institution of government mentioned. The text simply says, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” It is true that the sword-power is vested in the government, but this fact is not mentioned here. Rather, the text presupposes the existence and the future development of some form of government; but here the scripture lays down only the general ordinance that the power and the duty of the sword shall reside in that government. At the time of this announcement we might say that the only authority and power of government in existence was Noah, the father in his family. But Noah did not become a ruler through this pronouncement; he already was the only government that existed at the time when this ordinance was established by God.
Second, we must view government and its authority as an institution given with the organic creation and development of the human race. It was given with the creation of Adam, the head of the human race. And it develops from the simple unit of the family with its parental authority into the broader patriarchal family, and from the clan into the tribe, and from the tribe into the nation. Moreover, we may note that God’s will with respect to such authority is principally revealed in the fifth commandment. The principle of obedience to parents is frequently extended and applied in scripture to authority in every sphere of life, including that of the relation of king and subject, governor and citizen. This is the nature of the authority of civil government, from the highest official down to the police officer who patrols the streets of our cities and the highways of the open country. The powers that be are ordained of God, and as such the Christian must certainly view them.
Additionally, we must remember that this authority is not bestowed directly, but indirectly and mediately through our Lord Jesus Christ. All power and authority is given to Christ, first of all. And from God, through Christ, the government receives its authority, its prerogative to rule and to impose its will upon the citizens. This is of great importance. It does not mean that an evil magistrate rules by the grace of Christ and of God. A magistrate rules by the grace of God only when he serves the Lord Christ from the heart and when he occupies his position of authority as before God’s face and for his sake. But it does mean that the authority of that magistrate is bestowed by God through Christ, and that every magistrate is responsible to employ that authority strictly in obedience to Christ and through him to God. And it does indeed mean that the citizen is bound to obey that magistrate and acknowledge his authority—even, according to the scriptures, the authority of an evil and froward magistrate—for Christ’s sake.
Parenthetically, we may remark in this connection that in this day of rampant disrespect and civil disobedience and riot and rebellion, it is of the utmost importance that the people of God remember this, and that they do not in their thoughts, desires, or actions become partakers of the evil deeds of the ungodly. It is a wicked shame when the church and the people of God lend their name and their support to such movements of civil rebellion—because it is flagrant disobedience, not just to men and to mere human governors, but also to God and to our Lord Jesus Christ.
Third, we ought also to note carefully that the government does not restrain sin. Government as such is not instituted for sin’s sake or on account of sin’s entering into the world. We may safely assume that if sin had not entered into the world, there would still have been government. It is also true that there will even be in the kingdom of glory those who exercise authority and those who obey, under Christ as the king supreme. Nor is government instituted as a blessing of common grace for the restraint of sin at the time of the covenant with Noah. Even when we take into account that the government at the time of this pronouncement is vested with the sword-power, we must remember that the sword of the magistrate does not restrain the progress and development of sin. At best, the sword can prevent only some, not even all, sinful deeds. Its effect is strictly outward. The sword can never prevent or restrain the spiritual progress of sin in the heart. The sword, for example, can conceivably prevent the deed of murder in some cases, simply through the power of the fear of punishment, but it can never prevent a man from having a heart full of hatred and of murderous thoughts and desires, and it can never fill a man’s heart with love toward a neighbor or with true obedience toward the government. Besides, we must not overlook the fact that the sword-power itself, as it resides in the hands of evil magistrates, is certainly an important factor in the very development and progress of sin. One has only to think of the fact that the sword was wielded in the crucifixion of our Lord Jesus Christ and in the frequent persecutions of the saints in the past, as well as the fact that it shall again be employed by the Antichrist in the days shortly before our Lord’s return.
Genesis 9:6, however, speaks not of the institution of government, but of the ordinance of vengeance and of the sword-power. It enjoins on man as an ordinance of God the duty to kill the murderer. Notice that this is a duty. It is not a mere privilege or right. It is not to be viewed as an option that may or may not be exercised. But it is a duty, a calling, an obligation before God. It is a divine ordinance for the life of this present world. This sword-power implies not only what is called “capital punishment” for “capital crimes,” but also the punishment of all evildoers, for the ruler “is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil” (Rom. 13:4).
In our country and in our age, this has become totally strange language, even among those who go by the name of Christian and of church, and surely among those who occupy the position of rulers. An altogether humanistic and God-defying philosophy of victimization and rehabilitation has taken its place. This is true of much of the church, as well as of the citizenry at large. This is true of the government itself. How ironic it is, then, when the very government that is supposed to exercise authority and wield the sword in the name of Christ and of God sometimes stands wringing its hands in desperate helplessness and confusion because of disrespect and open revolution; when that government itself fosters the principles of revolution and has brought itself into desperate straits because of its own substitution of a humanistic philosophy of penal reform and rehabilitation and because of its own refusal to observe the divine ordinances—all of which are rooted, of course, in the fact that it knows not and acknowledges not the God of our salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.
But how abominably wicked it is when the church and the individual, nominally-Christian citizen become guilty of supporting these same humanistic principles contrary to the plain word of God, and when they even attempt to use the scriptures in their support. Yet this is what frequently happens today. It is argued, for example, that Jesus enjoins us to love them that persecute, that he inveighs against the idea of revenge and of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. On such a basis it is claimed that as long as a murderer is safely locked up, justice has been served by the removal of the offender from society. Or the argument is proposed that capital punishment cuts off a man’s chance for repentance and conversion. Or it is argued that a judge can err, and that in the case of capital punishment such error is irreversible, and therefore it would be a terrible thing should a mistake occur.
To all of this we reply that although the Lord Jesus clearly condemns personal revenge, capital punishment is a matter of the God-instituted government and of him that represents God in wielding the sword. We reply farther that salvation is no matter of chance; it depends on God’s almighty grace, which is able to convert even a murderer in God’s own time and by his own means. And we reply that the obligation of justice rests upon the magistrates, who are also responsible to see to it that justice is carefully administered and penalties properly meted out, and who certainly may not in recklessness and uncertainty invoke the death penalty. In the final analysis, all of these claims do not change one iota the clear pronouncement of the ordinance of God in this passage. Before that word we must bow, and to that ordinance we must submit.
-----------------------------------------------------
(III)
More to come! (DV)
No comments:
Post a Comment