by email

in reader




When the plaintiff brings a lawsuit in his own name, he inevitably also brings it in God’s name, for God is the primary victim of crime: "If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep. . ." (Lev. 6:1). The modern practice of allowing atheists to “affirm” to tell the truth in court, but not to swear on the Bible or in God’s name, is a direct affront against God and against the church as the guardian of the oath. The removal of God from oaths, and the light and dishonest use of oaths, is a declaration of the court's independence from God. In Lev. 6:1-7, the required animal sacrifice served as an atonement for a crime against God’s civil court of swearing a false oath. In the New Testament, this priestly sacrifice was made by Jesus Christ at Calvary. The various animal sacrifices in the Old Testament representationally prefigured this ultimate sacrifice (Heb. 9:1ff). Nevertheless, if the perjurer is a church member, he has partaken of the Lord’s Supper following his false testimony to the court. This places him in jeopardy of God’s negative sanctions (I Cor. 11:30). The church’s officers deserve to know of the transgression, and can lawfully assign a penalty. This penalty should not exceed the value of a ram in the Mosaic economy. The Church is the protector of the oath. The State is required to establish what constitutes a valid civil oath, but only after consultation with churches. The State must identify those congregations that are confessionally orthodox and therefore eligible to receive the trespass offering. This authority to identify confessionally orthodox churches implies that members of associations not so identified as orthodox cannot legally be granted the legal status of citizens.
- Gary North, Leviticus: An Economic Commentary 134-46 (1994), at http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/gnlv.pdf.