General revelation may be able to rank sins in a natural continuum of lesser to greater but it has limits. Only special revelation can clearly distinguish between a sin and a legal crime or set specific, divine penalties for a fallen world.

Until the relevance of Old Testament (OT) civil law is clearly defined for the gospel age, theological and exegetical arguments will remain inconclusive. This article highlights a defining question, which is intended to force relevant theological and exegetical support for one of two distinct positions.

There is an epistemic cost to the ‘no longer required’ position regarding OT civil law. It will be demonstrated that the opposing view to a distinctly Westminster civil ethic makes it impossible to know God’s mind on judicial equity relative to Israel’s understanding under covenantal rule. If the ‘no longer required’ view is correct, then God has either changed his mind on what constitutes judicial equity for the nations, or he never intended the OT civil law to illustrate abiding equity. By eliminating OT illustrations, either scenario makes it difficult to determine what God expects of civil magistrates today relative to the distant past. Furthermore, only one view aligns with the sufficiency of Scripture in equipping man for every good work, and only one avoids divorcing natural law from special revelation. At the very least, apart from relying on Scripture, it’s undeniable that rulers have a dismal track record of agreeing on what should constitute crime and determining suitable punishments (e.g., death, restitution, rehabilitation, warning etc.).

Before diving into the argument, it is useful to familiarize ourselves with some basic logic and common forms of argument, allowing us to honor God more fully as his image bearers.

The law of the excluded middle:

The law of the excluded middle (LEM) is a fundamental principle of classical logic that helps identify and examine disagreements over opposing views. The usefulness of LEM is that it enables opposing views to be reduced to a binary choice. Accordingly, LEM strips away the dross of middle ground, which helps clarify what is truly at stake between two sides.

The application of LEM is straightforward enough: by removing the gray area and presenting only two contradictory options, proving one false automatically proves the other true. This principle is universal because a statement and its negation cannot both be true. Therefore, demonstrating that a negation leads to absurdity proves the original statement. This method, often referred to as an indirect proof (or proof by contradiction), is best illustrated with a concrete example. Hopefully it’s not one that is too personally familiar!

Assume you wanted to prove your innocence in a murder that required the murderer to be at the scene at the precise time of the crime (say, midnight ).

LEM: Either you were at the crime scene at midnight or you were not. (There is no in-between.)

Evidence: You were somewhere else at midnight.

Fact: The murderer was at the scene at midnight.

Result: You are not in the set of possible suspects.

Takeaways from the argument:

The argument cuts through the noise and focuses the options on two. Things like motive, means, opportunity, emotional state, and preparation become moot if the alibi is indubitable. Of course, the evidence for being somewhere else can be challenged, and that is fine. Notwithstanding, the point of the illustration shows the clarifying usefulness of LEM.

The argument demonstrates the truth of innocence by showing that the only alternative (guilt) leads to an impossible situation (being at two places at once), which entails contradiction. (The basic argument employs a disjunctive syllogism that relies on identity and set theory.)

Finally, the argument is indirect rather than direct because it demonstrates where you were not (i.e, at the crime scene at midnight). The indirect aspect is perhaps clearer in the employment of modus tollens, which relies on a conditional premise rather than a disjunction.

Assume the opposite of what you’d like to prove:

1. You committed the murder at midnight. (Assumes the opposite)
2. If you committed the murder, then you must have been at the crime scene at midnight. (Conditional premise based on the assumption.)
3. You were not at the crime scene at midnight. (Contradiction)
4. It is false that you committed the murder. (Modus Tollens 2, 3 and 4)
5. You did not commit the murder. (Law of negation)

By combining these two arguments, we can create this robust defense:

1. LEM: Either you were at the crime scene at the precise time of murder (midnight) or you were not (i.e., it is false that you were).
2. If you committed the murder, then you must have been at the crime scene at midnight.
3. You were not at the crime scene at midnight.
4. It is false that you committed the murder.
5. Therefore, you did not commit the murder.

Applying tools of inference to OT civil ethics.

Premise: Either God requires all civil governments to apply the equity of OT civil law today, or he does not. (There is no third way!)

This requirement fails to account for the fact that many governments over the years have been ignorant of OT law through no fault of their own. Although natural law is universal, it is safe to assume that accountability to special revelation requires access to it.

Given the observation pertaining to culpability and ignorance, we can use the refined statement in our argument:

1. Whenever possible (assumed hereafter), God requires all civil governments to apply the general equity of OT civil law today, or he does not.
2. If God does not require all civil governments to apply the general equity of OT civil law today, then it’s impossible to know God’s mind on the subject. (The subject being concerned with determining crimes and just punishment.)
3. It’s not impossible to know God’s mind on the subject.
4. It is false that God does not require that all civil governments apply the general equity of OT civil law today.

Read More