LAW AND SANCTIONS Ye shall observe to do therefore as the LORD your God hath commanded you: ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left. Ye shall walk in all the ways which the LORD your God hath commanded you, that ye may live, and that it may be well with you, and that ye may prolong your days in the land which ye shall possess (Deut. 5:32-33).
God as the Lawgiver is the theocentric focus of this law. This case law was therefore a cross-boundary law. It was not a tribal law. It was a law of national inheritance in Canaan, since it referred to the land. The question is: Was it exclusively a land law? I argue that it extended beyond the boundaries of Israel, for the Mosaic law was inherently expansionist and evangelical. Paul universalized it.
Moses informed the conquest generation that God had spoken these words to him immediately after the giving of the law in Exodus 20. The phrase, "ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left," occurs repeatedly in the Pentateuch and in Joshua. The model was the march through the Red Sea: "But the children of Israel walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea; and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left" (Ex. 14:29). They were safe on dry land in between two mountains of water. This judicial principle also underlay the decisions of Israel's civil judges (Deut. 17:8-11) and the king: "That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel" (Deut. 17:20). This principle was to become the basis of Israel's extension of dominion over other nations: "And the LORD shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath; if that thou hearken unto the commandments of the LORD thy God, which I command thee this day, to observe and to do them: And thou shalt not go aside from any of the words which I command thee this day, to the right hand, or to the left, to go after other gods to serve them" (Deut. 28:13-14).
The phrase also appears in the Book of Joshua, at the beginning of the conquest and at the end of his rule, when he transferred authority to the judges. The people told him: "Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest" (Josh. 1:7). Decades later, he told the rulers: "Be ye therefore very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses, that ye turn not aside therefrom to the right hand or to the left" (Josh. 23:6). Solomon echoed this: "Turn not to the right hand nor to the left: remove thy foot from evil" (Prov. 4:27).
Ethical Cause and Effect The basis of long-term success in history is adherence to the laws of God. This is stated clearly in the text. Moses exhorted the nation to obey God in order to prolong their lives in the land. This was a national extension of the Decalogue's familial rule: "Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee" (Ex. 20:12). Paul pointed out that this was the first commandment to which a promise was attached (Eph. 6:2). This is a very important observation.
A promise in the Bible is always conditional. This is because a promise is always covenantal, and covenants are always ethically conditional. Calvinists speak of unconditional election, but this phrase is technically incorrect. Election from the beginning was always conditional on the faithfulness of Jesus Christ in history. God imputes -- unilaterally declares judicially -- the perfect righteousness of Christ to individual sinners, but this perfect righteousness was not unconditional. It was conditional down to the last jot and tittle of the law. "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all" (James 2:10).
God's promise to Abraham regarding the inheritance was not made in terms of the Mosaic law. Paul wrote: "And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise" (Gal. 3:17-18). Yet there was a law implicitly attached to the Abrahamic covenant promise: the law of circumcision. The conquest generation had to be circumcised before the conquest could begin within the Jordan's boundaries (Josh. 5:5). There were conditions attached to the promise.
Paul said that the commandment's positive sanction of long life for those who honor parents was a promise. This was obviously a conditional promise. This conditional promise was explicitly part of the Mosaic law. God extended this same promise from the family to the nation when He broadened the stipulations of the covenant to the whole of the Mosaic law.
Covenant law has sanctions attached. These sanctions are positive and negative. These sanctions are the means of inheritance. The negative sanctions are the means of disinheritance, while the positive sanctions are the means of inheritance. This means that point three of the biblical covenant model -- ethics -- is inextricably connected with point four: sanctions. Point five -- inheritance -- is the result of point four. They are a consistent, judicially unbreakable unity. Thus, God's promise of inheritance to Abraham's heirs was inextricably bound to the stipulation of the Abrahamic covenant: circumcision. Similarly, God's promise to the Israelites regarding the maintenance of the covenant grant was inextricably bound to the stipulations of the Mosaic covenant. The Mosaic covenant's stipulations were far more comprehensive than the Abrahamic covenant's had been. "Ye shall walk in all the ways which the LORD your God hath commanded you, that ye may live, and that it may be well with you, and that ye may prolong your days in the land which ye shall possess" (Deut. 5:33).
The Israelites were told to obey God in order to receive specific benefits. The presentation of the law was in terms of results: benefits for obedience, set-backs for disobedience. God did not present the covenant as a system of rules that was in no way connected with outcomes. On the contrary, God presented His law in terms of the wisdom of pursuing righteousness because of the benefits. "Doing well by doing good" is the very essence of biblical ethics. More specifically, doing well in history by doing good is biblical. Anyone who suggests that God has created an ethical system that promises only "pie in the sky bye and bye" has either not understood the biblical covenant model or else he has denied that this Old Covenant ethical system extends into the New Covenant. In the second case, he needs proof based on the New Covenant. It is not sufficient to assert such a conclusion without exegetical proof.(1) Solomon said: "Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many days" (Eccl. 11:1). "And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life" (Mark 10:29-30).
Straight and Narrow, Deep and Wide The road to success for Adam prior to the Fall was broad. He could do anything he wanted to without fear of loss, with one exception. For Abraham, this road was narrower. He had to circumcise the males of his household. For Moses, the road was narrower still. More things were placed off-limits. In some areas, the New Covenant is even narrower. For example, divorce is no longer lawful merely on the basis of a written declaration by a husband (Matt. 5:31-32); it was under the Mosaic law (Deut. 24:1). On the other hand, the minutia of the dietary laws have been annulled completely (Acts 10; I Cor. 8). So, certain ethical limits have been tightened; ritual limits have been loosened. Mosaic land laws, seed laws, and priestly laws have been annulled.(2) But the requirements for extending the kingdom have been made far more rigorous, especially geographically.(3)
Predictable, historical, visible corporate sanctions are unbreakably attached to God's law. This is covenant theology's explanation of God's promise of the church's visible victory in history. This promise is what amillennialists and premillennialists deny; they preach the visible cultural defeat of the church in history. This is why premillennialists and amillennialists either deny covenant theology or else define it in such a way that the law's sanctions are removed. We are told that there is no possible widespread cultural victory for the church in history because of the following reasons: 1) the Mosaic law has been completely annulled; 2) the covenant's historical sanctions are no longer predictable; or 3) the promise of the church's defeat in history has replaced the promise of Israel's victory in history, at least in this dispensation. None of these theological arguments is correct.(4)
Because God's covenant is a unified system, God's law, His historical sanctions, and our inheritance are an unbreakable unity. The inescapable reality of God's predictable sanctions in history is why it is theologically mandatory to link theonomy with postmillennialism. Non-theonomic postmillennialism can exist without theonomy, but theonomy cannot exist without postmillennialism, assuming that we define theonomy in terms of the five points of the biblical covenant. Of course, it is quite possible to discuss all five points independently, and many Calvinists do: God's sovereignty without God's law, God's sanctions without church hierarchy, and so forth. This is the way that Reformed Baptists adhere to Calvinism: without the covenant. It is also the way that most Presbyterians adhere to Calvinism. Protestants have been doing this for centuries. But if we speak of biblical covenant theology, we must speak of an integrated system: all five points. Deuteronomy is clearly structured in terms of these five points. So is Leviticus.(5) So is the Pentateuch.(6)
Covenant theology identifies the straight and narrow path. It argues that because God is absolutely sovereign, every fact of history operates under His authority. God has given to covenant-keepers the hierarchical authority to extend His kingdom in history. They are to do this in terms of His Bible-revealed law, the tool of dominion.(7) Covenant-keepers who possess lawful, ordained authority are required to bring predictable individual sanctions in terms of God's law: specific cases. God also brings corporate sanctions in terms of His law. This is why covenant-keepers inherit progressively over time, while covenant-breakers are progressively disinherited. "A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children's children: and the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just" (Prov. 13:22).
The ethically straight and narrow path leads to widespread dominion in history. Those who remain on this path inherit the earth.
His soul shall dwell at ease; and his seed shall inherit the earth (Ps. 25:13).
For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth (Ps. 37:9).
But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace (Ps. 37:11).
For such as be blessed of him shall inherit the earth; and they that be cursed of him shall be cut off (Ps. 37:22).
Deuteronomy and Inheritance The word Deuteronomy is an English transliteration of the Greek words for second and law. Deuteronomy is the second presentation of the law. Moses read the Decalogue to the people in Deuteronomy a second time. Why? Because this was part of an act of national covenant renewal. The long-promised Abrahamic inheritance was about to be claimed by the fourth generation. Yet this generation had not been circumcised. Legally, they were outside Abraham's family covenant.
Moses' second reading of the law was a recapitulation of the events of Exodus 19 and 20, which is why Moses told that story and read that law. Because the Aaronic priesthood remained the same, this was not a new covenant with a new law. It was covenant renewal. Only through national covenant renewal, which involved circumcision, could this generation inherit. They were still technically outside the full covenant, Abraham's covenant of the promised inheritance. They had to go through a separate act of covenant renewal because of the rebellion of their parents in not circumcising them. Their parents had clearly broken the Abrahamic covenant. They had, judicially speaking, placed their children outside the inheritance. It was as if they said to themselves, "Since we cannot inherit, our children will not inherit, either." These were present-oriented people without a sense of dominion, without a commitment to kingdom-building.
By reading the law to the uncircumcised generation, Moses turned their minds back to the first event in national covenant-making: the covenant established at Sinai-Horeb (Ex. 19, 20). This reading was an act of covenantal subordination (point two).(8) This followed the first covenantal step in the conquest: the total destruction of Arad's kingdom (Num. 21:1-3), a whole burnt offering (point one).(9) Moses was preparing them for the next covenantal step: crossing the Jordan, a boundary violation signifying the conquest of Canaan (point three). Then would come the next covenantal step: circumcision, an oath sign (point four). Then would come the next covenantal step: the total destruction of Jericho, another whole burnt offering on Canaan's side of the Jordan (point one). Only then would come the full conquest: inheritance (point five).
Conclusion The law of the covenant was Israel's tool of dominion. Israel was about to inherit, according to God's promise to Abraham. But inheriting is not the same as maintaining. To maintain the kingdom grant, Israel would have to obey God.
This passage offers a conditional promise: long life in the land as a positive sanction for obedience. God's promises are reliable. This means that His corporate historical sanctions are predictable. Predictable in terms of what standard? His Bible-revealed law. Biblical law begins with the Ten Commandments, which Moses has just read to them. It also includes case laws or application laws, which he will read to them later. The important point is that the law of the covenant and the maintenance of the Israel's kingdom grant in history were linked by the presence of God's predictable corporate sanctions.
Paul's citation of the fifth commandment and its positive sanction of long life affirmed the continuing validity of a crucial aspect of the Mosaic covenant. He universalized this promise: from long life in the land of Canaan to long life on earth. This was not an act of covenantal annulment. It was the antithesis of covenantal annulment. This fact constitutes a major exegetical dilemma for those who oppose theonomy.
Footnotes:
1. Since 1973, theonomists have been waiting for this proof.
2. Gary North, Leviticus: An Economic Commentary (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1994), pp. 637-43.
3. Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., The Greatness of the Great Commission: The Christian Enterprise in a Fallen World (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990).
4. Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1992).
5. North, Leviticus, pp. 44-45.
6. Ibid., pp. xlii-xlix.
7. Gary North, Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990).
8. Exodus is the book of the covenant (Ex. 24:7).
9. North, Leviticus, ch. 1.
If this book helps you gain a new understanding of the Bible, please consider sending a small donation to the Institute for Christian Economics, P.O. Box 8000, Tyler, TX 75711. You may also want to buy a printed version of this book, if it is still in print. Contact ICE to find out. icetylertx@aol.com