2
THE WORK OF THE LAW AND SOCIAL UTILITY For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel (Rom. 2:12-16).
The theocentric basis of this passage is the image of God in man. At the core of every man's being, his conscience testifies to the existence of God and His law. Men are therefore without excuse when they rebel against God by breaking His law.
Conscience Romans 1:18-22 describes the nature of man's rebellion: worshiping the creation rather than the Creator. In Romans 2, we learn about the consequences of this rebellion.
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God (Rom. 2:1-11).
Covenant-breaking men will be condemned by God on the day of final judgment, but they will not arrive before the judgment seat of God without any warning from God in history. Nature testifies daily to the existence of the Creator God of the Bible. Men's hearts also testify to them about the specifics of the law of God. Men actively rebel against the truth, Paul writes. For this rebellion, they will be condemned. Some of them will have been without God's written law; others will have been under the covenantal terms of this law and condemned by it. "For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law" (v. 12). Paul is here building a judicial case for every person's need of saving grace. "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23). Without saving grace, he says, every person will perish: those covenantally under biblical law and those not under biblical law.
Paul says that the work of the law is written on the heart of every person. He does not say that the law of God is written in every man's heart. This latter ethical condition is an aspect of regeneration, i.e., an aspect of special grace. The prophet Jeremiah prophesied regarding a new covenant which would be written on the hearts of God's people.
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more (Jer. 31:31-34).
This has been fulfilled by the New Covenant of Jesus Christ. At the time of a person's regeneration, he becomes the recipient of this promised blessing. The law of God is at that point in time written on his heart definitively. We read in the Epistle to the Hebrews:
For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away (Heb. 8:8-13).
Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more (Heb. 10:15-17).
This is not what Paul is speaking about in Romans 2. What Paul describes in Romans 2 is God's common grace of the human conscience, which leads to a common condemnation by God at the final judgment. Paul says that the work of the law, not the law itself, is written on every man's heart. Men's consciences testify as witnesses to the existence of the work of the law.(1) Men know by conscience what they are not supposed to do outwardly. They know which acts are condemned by God. They know, but they do not always obey.
How is the knowledge of the work of God's law different from the knowledge of the law itself? Paul does not say. We know from Jeremiah and the Epistle to the Hebrews that having the law of God written in covenant-keeping men's hearts is the fulfillment of prophecy. This is not a universal condition of mankind. Paul says here that having the work of the law written in the heart is the common condition of mankind. There has to be a distinction between these two forms of legal knowledge, but this text does not identify what the distinction is. Cornelius Van Til, the Calvinist philosopher, put it this way:
It is true that they have the law written in their hearts. Their own make-up as image-bearers of God tells them, as it were, in the imperative voice, that they must act as such. All of God's revelation to man is law to man. But here we deal with man's response as an ethical being to this revelation of God. All men, says Paul, to some extent, do the works of the law. He says that they have the works of the law written in their hearts. Without a true motive, without a true purpose, they may still do that which externally appears as acts of obedience to God's law. God continues to press his demands upon man, and man is good "after a fashion" just as he knows "after a fashion."(2)
Some people never know about God's Bible-revealed law. Paul says, "For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law." They will perish. Why? If they have no knowledge of God's law, then why does God hold them responsible for having broken His law? Paul's answer: because they are not without knowledge of the work of the law, and this knowledge is sufficient to condemn them. Everyone possesses this knowledge in his or her nature as God's image. "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves" (v. 14).(3)
Covenant When Paul speaks of "their conscience also bearing witness" (v. 15), he has in mind the inescapability of the terms of God's covenant, for mankind is God's image-bearer. Man in Adam is required to exercise dominion in God's name and by His authority (Gen. 1:26-28), a covenant that God renewed with Noah (Gen. 9:1-3). I call this the dominion covenant.(4) This covenant defines mankind. It has stipulations. First, men are to exercise dominion. This is a positive task. Second, the original conditions applied in the garden. Adam was told not to eat from a particular tree. This was a negative command. It placed a legal boundary around God's property. This command served as a test of man's obedience.
The broken covenant brought death to man and his heirs. "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come" (Rom. 5:12-14). This historical sanction has been applied by God and continues to be applied. Death reigned before God gave the written law to Moses. So, there has to be a more universal law than the Mosaic law, or else death would not have been imposed from Adam to Moses. It was not because men kept eating from a forbidden tree that they died, Paul says. They died because of Adam's sin. But why? Because this sin was judicially representative, even as Jesus' righteousness is judicially representative.
For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous (Rom. 5:15b-19).
The covenant's sanction of physical death is applied to mankind throughout history because of the judicially representative status of the original law-breaker, Adam. By breaking one law, he broke all of them. James writes: "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all" (James 2:10). Adam's sin was representative for all mankind. The law he broke was representative of all of God's laws.
The covenant between God and man was broken by Adam when he ate the forbidden fruit. The law's negative sanction is now applied to all men. Paul writes in Romans 2 that the negative sanction of final judgment is sure. Men will not be caught unaware by the final judgment, because they know enough about what God's law requires of every person for them to conclude that final negative sanctions are coming on "the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel" (v. 16). Paul is arguing the following: the ethical terms of the covenant are sufficiently well known to all men in history so as to render them without excuse before God. Men also know enough about God's final sanctions so as to render them without excuse. What kinds of evidence offers them such condemning testimony? Sanctions that are imposed by governments, including civil government. They see that evil is punished in history by civil government and other lawful governments. Paul writes: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God" (Rom. 13:1). Men know that every society requires such sanctions. They also know that these universal systems of governmental sanctions point to God's final judgment. But covenant-breaking people actively suppress this testimony of their consciences, just as they actively suppress the testimony that God must be worshiped in spirit and in truth.(5)
Corporate Action The free market economist generally begins with the assumption of individual self-determination: man as the owner of his own person. The socialist economist begins with the State as the proper agency of economic representation: the owner of the means of production, including men's labor time. The free market economist cannot logically move from the sovereignty of an individual's value preferences to a concept of corporate social value that relies on State coercion that violates a law-breaker's individual values and preferences. The socialist economist cannot logically move from the sovereignty of the State's corporate social value scale to a concept of sovereign individual values and preferences. Yet, in practice, most free market economists do affirm the legitimacy of the State, and socialists do allow individuals to retain some degree of control over their persons and goods, if only for the benefits in improved efficiency that private ownership produces in individuals. There is a logical dilemma here. It involves the philosophical problem of the one and the many: dealing with hypothetically autonomous individuals and their underlying unity in society.(6)
A Christian economist has available to him a solution to this epistemological dilemma: the covenant. God established a covenant with mankind through Adam. This covenant still is binding, even though Adam broke its terms. It is still judicially representative. This doctrine of judicial representation rests on the doctrine of man as God's image in history (Gen. 1:26). In every person, there is a conscience that imparts some knowledge of what God's laws require. God brings sanctions, positive and negative, in terms of men's obedience to His laws. These sanctions are historical as well as final. They are both individual and corporate, but they are more predictably corporate (Deut. 28) than individual. Sanctions are less predictably applied in individual cases.
A Psalm of Asaph. Truly God is good to Israel, even to such as are of a clean heart. But as for me, my feet were almost gone; my steps had well nigh slipped. For I was envious at the foolish, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked. For there are no bands in their death: but their strength is firm. They are not in trouble as other men; neither are they plagued like other men (Ps. 73:1-5).
Behold, these are the ungodly, who prosper in the world; they increase in riches. Verily I have cleansed my heart in vain, and washed my hands in innocency. For all the day long have I been plagued, and chastened every morning (Ps. 73:12-14).
Until I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end. Surely thou didst set them in slippery places: thou castedst them down into destruction. How are they brought into desolation, as in a moment! they are utterly consumed with terrors. As a dream when one awaketh; so, O Lord, when thou awakest, thou shalt despise their image. Thus my heart was grieved, and I was pricked in my reins. So foolish was I, and ignorant: I was as a beast before thee (Ps. 73:17-22).
Because the Bible authorizes civil governments to impose negative sanctions on behalf of God, it is possible for a society to avoid some of God's negative sanctions by enforcing God's civil laws. These laws are revealed in the Bible. Men can understand them. These biblical laws are consistent with the work of the law written in men's hearts. There is a common humanity. This common humanity involves a common perception of right and wrong. This ethical information is actively suppressed to one degree or other by sinful men. That men believe in God is clear from Romans 1:18-20. That they do not come to a widely shared conclusion about what God is or how He wants men to worship Him is equally clear. Common natural revelation and common logic do not persuade covenant-breaking men that the God of the Bible has mandated specific forms of worship (Rom. 1:21-22).
The same is true of men's individual responses to God's law. Men know what the work of God's law requires, but they suppress this information in an attempt to escape the law's burdens and its sanctions. There is no system of logic that can persuade covenant-breaking men that the Bible's laws are mandatory. Even the Israelites needed regular reinforcement of this idea. The king was told to read the texts of God's law. "And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them" (Deut. 17:18-19). The nation was to assemble every seven years to listen to a reading of the law. "And Moses commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles, When all Israel is come to appear before the LORD thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing. Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the LORD your God, and observe to do all the words of this law (Deut. 31:10-12). The work of the law of God is written in every human heart, but rebellious men nevertheless need written revelation and regularly scheduled reinforcement through hearing this written revelation.
Natural Law Theory Natural law theory originated after the conquest of the Greek city-states, first by Alexander the Great and then by Rome. Stoic political philosophers had to replace their theory of the autonomy of the polis and its laws. They wanted to find some theoretical foundation for their ethical system, which had previously relied on intellectual defenses based on the sovereignty of the polis. Natural law theory was their solution.(7)
Natural law theory assumes that there is a common logic among men. This common-ground logic is said to bind all men, so that by adopting it, we can persuade all rational men of truths regarding social and political ethics. Christian philosophers have adopted this idea. They have confused it with the work of the law written on all men's hearts, which is a doctrine of common-ground ethics, not common-ground logic. The main effect of natural law theory today has been to persuade Christians to abandon the Bible as the basis of civil law and to begin a quest for common civil laws and common civil sanctions.
The theoretical problem with natural law theory is that covenant-breakers suppress the truth in unrighteousness.(8) Their powers of reasoning have been negatively affected by sin. They begin with the assumption of their own intellectual autonomy. They cannot logically conclude from this assumption the existence of the absolutely sovereign God of the Bible and His binding law.(9) Natural law theory is a logical system that begins with the assumption of man's autonomy, which means that natural law theory has nothing in common with the assumption of God's sovereignty. Natural law theory assumes that covenant-breaking men can build and sustain a just society on the basis of natural laws, natural rights, and universal logic.
Natural law theory also assumes that sin and its effects have not adversely distorted the image of God in man. It assumes that fallen men do not actively suppress the truth. These two errors lead to a false conclusion, namely, that an appeal to common-ground logic can persuade fallen men. But if Paul was correct, how can natural men be persuaded to obey God, based on natural law theory? Paul entertained no such hope. "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (I Cor. 2:14). God's law is spiritually discerned, but only by those who are spiritual -- and not even by very many of them, as the history of Christian political theory indicates. The work of God's law is naturally discerned to a degree sufficient to condemn men for disobeying it, but not sufficiently to enable them to build a biblically moral society. Paul makes it clear in Romans 1 that the natural man suppresses the testimony of creation regarding God the Creator, reinterpreting God to conform to his covenant-breaking interpretation of reality. Why should Christians believe that the natural man will not do the same thing with the work of the law written on his heart? Why should Christians believe that an appeal to natural law should be any more successful in bringing men to judicial truth than to theological truth?
Today, Christian scholars are among the few remaining defenders of natural law theory. Darwinism has undermined faith in natural law theory among most humanists. Autonomous, evolving nature is widely believed to offer no moral standards. Even the survival of a species is not a moral imperative. Darwinian nature has no moral imperatives. For Darwinism, there is no permanent natural law. Everything evolves, including ethics. Because man's social and physical environments change, says the Darwinist, any ethical standards that do not promote the survival of humanity must be abandoned if mankind is to survive, yet survival is not an ethical imperative of nature unless man somehow represents nature on behalf of . . . whom? Man? God? Nature?(10) There is no agreement among Darwinists regarding either the existence or the content of fixed ethical precepts that are derived from nature. Darwinian ethical systems are shaped by mankind's uniquely perceived requirement to survive in a constantly changing environment. This is the creed of social Darwinism, whether statist (e.g., Lester Frank Ward) or individualist (e.g., Herbert Spencer).(11) This is also the creed of free market economists, Rothbard excepted.(12)
Natural law theory is always an attempt to fuse Jerusalem and Athens. It is an attempt to reconcile autonomous man and the God of the Bible. No such reconciliation is possible. Because of God's common grace, covenant-breaking men are restrained in their suppression of the work of the law in their hearts. But, as they think more consistently with their presuppositions regarding God, man, law, consequences, and time, they become more hostile to the work of the law in their hearts. Logic does not persuade them.
The Witness of Common Grace God has revealed to all men what they must do to gain His positive sanctions in eternity: trust and obey. God has also given them sufficient revelation in nature to distinguish good laws from bad laws. God's Bible-revealed laws are the good laws that some covenant-breakers do recognize as beneficial. Moses told the generation of the conquest: "Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for? And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?" (Deut. 4:5-8).
The fact that some covenant-breakers can and do recognize the beneficial corporate results of God's laws, including His civil laws, does not mean that they will adopt these laws. No foreign nation around Israel ever adopted Israel's legal system, although the people of Nineveh did repent temporarily from their most blatant personal sins (Jonah 3). The Queen of Sheba did come for specific counsel from Solomon.
And when the queen of Sheba heard of the fame of Solomon concerning the name of the LORD, she came to prove him with hard questions. And she came to Jerusalem with a very great train, with camels that bare spices, and very much gold, and precious stones: and when she was come to Solomon, she communed with him of all that was in her heart. And Solomon told her all her questions: there was not any thing hid from the king, which he told her not. And when the queen of Sheba had seen all Solomon's wisdom, and the house that he had built, And the meat of his table, and the sitting of his servants, and the attendance of his ministers, and their apparel, and his cupbearers, and his ascent by which he went up unto the house of the LORD; there was no more spirit in her. And she said to the king, It was a true report that I heard in mine own land of thy acts and of thy wisdom. Howbeit I believed not the words, until I came, and mine eyes had seen it: and, behold, the half was not told me: thy wisdom and prosperity exceedeth the fame which I heard. Happy are thy men, happy are these thy servants, which stand continually before thee, and that hear thy wisdom. Blessed be the LORD thy God, which delighted in thee, to set thee on the throne of Israel: because the LORD loved Israel for ever, therefore made he thee king, to do judgment and justice. And she gave the king an hundred and twenty talents of gold, and of spices very great store, and precious stones: there came no more such abundance of spices as these which the queen of Sheba gave to king Solomon (I Kings 10:1-10).
These incidents in Israel's history indicate that on specific issues, covenant-breakers do recognize the wisdom of God's law. A covenant-breaking society may adopt certain aspects of God's law in personal ethics or even social ethics, but it will not adopt biblical law as a comprehensive system of justice. Apart from God's gift to a society of widespread soul-saving grace, God does not empower a society to maintain its commitment to those few biblical laws that it may have adopted. Eventually, covenant-breakers rebel, just as Nineveh rebelled before Assyria invaded Israel. Common grace requires special grace in order to overcome mankind's ethical rebellion.(13)
Social Utility Covenant-breaking men do recognize the existence of certain benefits from the enforcement of certain biblical laws. This offers Christian social theorists a solution to the epistemological problem of social utility. Because of the image of God in every man, all men can and do perceive the benefits of obeying God's law. They can see the positive results of God's law, meaning God's positive corporate sanctions for obeying God's civil laws. As we have seen, the Bible teaches this explicitly. The problem is, covenant-breakers suppress this testimony. Israel did, too. Men in their rebellion deny to themselves that God's law is valid. They deny that its benefits offset its costs.
Nevertheless, God restrains men's rebellion against His law, just as He restrains rebellion against false worship. He does not allow covenant-breaking men to become completely consistent in their rebellion. Because there is a common perception among all the sons of Adam, due to God's image, it is possible for a civil government to pass laws against certain forms of public evil. These laws do produce society-wide benefits. Evil-doers lose in this arrangement. This is one of the law's major benefits. Paul says that this is the purpose of God's civil law. "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he 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. 13:3-4). The disutility produced by biblical civil sanctions in the life of the evil-doer is a benefit to society. His loss is society's gain. There is a net increase in social utility when evil-doers suffer losses for their evil deeds, either after they are judged by civil judges or before, when they decide not to seek their evil ends because of their fear of civil sanctions. Through natural revelation, covenant-breaking men know that this is the case, even though they partially suppress this truth. This is why all societies enforce laws against certain forms of public evil, such as murder.
Methodological Individualism
Methodological individualism, in its strict formulation, denies the existence of measurable social utility. It denies that there is any scientific case for social utility, because of the absence of any value scale common to all men. Humanistic economics also denies the legitimacy of any appeal to God, and this includes any appeal to the biblical doctrine of the image of God in man. In theory, say free market economists, there can be no aggregating of individual utilities. Then most of them pull back from their conclusion. They do not become fully consistent.
To deny social utility is to deny to the free market economist the ability to assess scientifically the net social benefit of any proposal, public or private. He can say that a participant in a voluntary exchange has been benefited, but social utility remains an illusion. He cannot logically say anything about social utility. This forces a consistent methodological individualist to remain silent when asked about the social utility of any piece of civil legislation. To use civil coercion in a quest to increase total social utility is to violate the principle of methodological individualism. Civil law discriminates against those who act in certain prohibited ways. But the methodological individualist views all of men's actions as equally the result of utility-maximization. All utilities are equal, he says. The economist seeks to be ethically neutral, as true scientists supposedly should. So, he is trapped by his individualism and his claim of ethical neutrality. If he remains consistent, he cannot recommend or discourage any piece of legislation in his capacity as a scientist. He can say nothing about how to increase or decrease social utility, which does not exist as a scientifically valid category.(14)
Do we find methodological individualists who remain silent regarding the positive or negative effects of legislation? Never. They all have opinions on how to increase net social utility, which they attempt to defend scientifically. They all use their skills as economists to take stands for or against specific civil laws. They say that a law would be a benefit or a liability to society. They all implicitly rely on the concept of social utility to justify their support of or opposition to civil laws. In this sense, we can say that God restrains their consistency both as methodological individualists and as ethical neutralists. As fully consistent methodological individualists and as fully ethically neutral, they would remove legitimacy from all civil governments, which would undermine the God-ordained covenantal authority of the State. "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God" (Rom. 13:1). Paul identifies the office of civil magistrate as a ministry. "For he 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). God therefore restrains methodological individualists and ethical neutralists in their war against the legitimacy of the civil covenant. They abandon their epistemological commitments for the sake of their own relevancy in public discourse. They do not announce, "I'm sorry; I can say nothing about the social costs or benefits of this policy." On the contrary, they encourage legislators and judges to estimate social costs and social benefits of some civil law in the State's legitimate quest for greater social efficiency. They may even promote their own assessments of the policy in terms of social justice, which is usually seen by them as efficient, too.
Conclusion In my studies of biblical economics, I have repeatedly returned to the theme of social utility and social cost.(15) This is because economic science faces the same epistemological dilemma that political philosophy faces: reconciling the one and the many.(16) To move from the presupposition of the autonomous individual to a discussion of society-benefitting civil sanctions requires a leap of faith by the methodological individualist. This leap of faith is eventually taken by all of them. They rarely explain why this procedure is valid, given their presuppositions.
Christianity offers the epistemological solution: the doctrine of man as the image of God, who Himself is both one and many, three persons yet one God. Men have the work of the law written in their hearts. A sufficient number of people in a society can come to agreements regarding the imposition of legitimate civil sanctions, thereby increasing total social utility. This is possible because they understand covenantal cause and effect as it applies to civil government, even though they suppress this knowledge to one degree or other.
Paul's discussion in Romans 1 of covenant-breaking man's willful suppression of the truth offers insights into his discussion of the work of the law in Romans 2. All men know who the Creator God is, Paul insists, but they suppress this revelation. They prefer to worship gods of their own imagination. Similarly, they perceive what God requires of them ethically, but they prefer to obey laws of their own creation.
The image of God in man enables a covenant-breaking legislator to perceive the social benefits of certain biblical laws, but covenant-breakers hold back(17) this perception in unrighteousness. They cannot completely suppress the truth, for God restrains them in their rebellion. This is why legislators do not pass utterly destructive laws. This is why civil judges can serve as ministers of God. It is also why economists can perceive the socially destructive effects of some pieces of free market-undermining legislation. But any moral or intellectual appeal to natural law subsidizes the enthronement of autonomous man. Autonomous man will eventually pursue programs that lead to his destruction. "But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death" (Prov. 8:36).
Footnotes:
1. John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1959, 1965), I, p. 75.
2. Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology, Vol. V of In Defense of the Faith (Phillipsburg, New Jersey, 1978), p. 105.
3. Ibid., I, p. 73.
4. Gary North, The Dominion Covenant: Genesis (2nd ed.; Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1987).
5. Chapter 1.
6. R. J. Rushdoony, The One and the Many: Studies in the Philosophy of Order and Ultimacy (Fairfax, Virginia: Thoburn Press, [1971] 1978).
7. Sheldon S. Wolin, Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Political Thought (Boston: Little, Brown, 1960), pp. 77-82.
8. Chapter 1.
9. This was a major argument in the philosophy of Cornelius Van Til.
10. The deeply religious movement known as the deep ecology movement specifically rejects the idea that mankind in any way represents nature or possesses legitimate authority over nature. A clear statement of this movement's views is Bill McKibben, The End of Nature (New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1989). The book became a best seller. It has been translated into at least sixteen languages.
11. Gary North, The Dominion Covenant: Genesis (2nd ed.; Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1987), Appendix A.
12. Rothbard defended the idea of permanent ethical standards, which he believed are derived from Aristotelian natural rights theory. Rothbard broke with Mises' utilitarianism and Hayek's social evolutionism. Murray N. Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty (New York: New York University Press, [1982] 1998). On Hayek, see North, Dominion Covenant, Appendix B.
13. Gary North, Dominion and Common Grace: The Biblical Basis of Progress (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1987), ch. 6.
14. Murray Rothbard deduced from a voluntary exchange an increase in social utility. Rothbard, "Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics" (1956), in Rothbard, The Logic of Action I: Method, Money and the Austrian School (Lyme, New Hampshire: Edward Elgar, 1997), ch. 10. But he faced a major epistemological problem: envy. If each of two people increases his personal individual utility through voluntary exchange, but a third party resents this, the economist cannot legitimately say that there has been an increase in social utility. He cannot measure the increase in personal utility of the two traders and then subtract from this the disutility of resentment. There is no common value scale. So, to make the logical case for his reconstruction, Rothbard had to deny envy, which he explicitly did. He said the economist must ignore envy because there is no way to know if a person really is envious. Years later, in one of his most important essays, Rothbard adopted sociologist Helmut Schoeck's thesis of equalitarianism as the product of envy, which Schoeck presented in Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior (New York: Harcourt Brace, [1966] 1969). When Rothbard did this, he undermined the justification in his 1956 essay for saying that voluntary exchanges increase social utility. Rothbard, "Freedom, Inequality, Primitism and the Division of Labor" (1971), in Rothbard, Egalitarianism: A Revolt Against Nature (Auburn, Alabama: Mises Institute, [1974] 2000). The essay is posted on-line:
http://www.mises.org/fipandol.asp 15. North, The Dominion Covenant, ch. 4; North, Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990), Appendix D: "The Problem of Social Cost."
16. Rushdoony, One and the Many.
17. John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1959, 1965), I, p. 37.
If you are interested in receiving Dr. North's FREE monthly e-mail newsletter send an e-mail to:
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.