(A slightly modified repost from my sci-fi blog)
In my article on Samudra — “an Afro-Indian world … with a Noahic flood, but no Abraham, or Moses, or Christ, or Mohammed” — I briefly touched on the Noahic Covenant:
The Seven Laws of Noah (Hebrew: שבע מצוות בני נח Sheva Mitzvot B’nei Noach), also referred to as the Noahide Laws or the Noachide Laws (from the Hebrew pronunciation of “Noah”), are a set of imperatives which, according to the Talmud, were given by God as a binding set of laws for the “children of Noah” – that is, all of humanity.
According to Jewish tradition, non-Jews who adhere to these laws because they were given by Moses are said to be followers of Noahidism and regarded as righteous gentiles, who are assured of a place in Olam Haba (עולם הבא, the world to come), the final reward of the righteous.
The Seven Laws of Noah include prohibitions against worshipping idols, cursing God, murder, adultery and sexual immorality, theft, eating flesh torn from a living animal, as well as the obligation to establish courts of justice.Wikipedia, Seven Laws of Noah
While transcribing Gary North’s Victim’s Rights, I came across the serious deficiencies of the Noahic Covenant, all tied to the limits Mosaic Law places on the state. Limits that are lacking in Noah’s covenant.
So, for the record — and for the Christian student who actually cares about promoting God-defined justice today (as opposed to escaping reality in the “any time now!” Rapture, or just licking the boot of his Betters) — an extended quote is provided below from Victim’s Rights, page 56-58 (footnotes deleted):
Noah’s Covenant: Low Content
Why this preference by modem conservative theologians for Noah’s covenant? Because in Noah’s covenant only one civil infraction is specified: murder and only one penal sanction: execution (Gen. 9:5). This absence of judicial specifics allows the civil government to specify as criminal whatever behavior it disapproves of and also allows it to impose whatever sanctions it wants to, without any mandatory reference to any other biblical law or sanction. This political perspective is basically an application of pre-Darwinian humanism’s social contract or social compact theory of the State, pioneered by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan (1651) and developed by John Locke (1690) and Rousseau (1762). This older viewpoint was originally a secularized version of and reaction against, the Puritans’ biblical covenant theory of civil government. It imputes primary sovereignty to the people rather than to God and His revealed law.
What is judiciously not discussed by the defenders of the “Noahic covenant theory of the State” is that the older social contract theory relied completely on the concept of natural law, and in Locke’s case, natural rights. This epistemologically naive view of civil law has been refuted from two sides: by Darwinism’s view of the evolving universe and by Van Til’s presuppositional apologetic. Without the doctrine of natural law or some version of natural rights theory to govern their theory of the State, defenders of the “Noahic covenant” theory have implicitly granted judicially unlimited power to the modern State, no matter how much they protest against such a development. They may be political conservatives personally; it makes no difference. Their personal political preferences become just that: personal preferences. Their personal political preferences are self-consciously and explicitly unconnected with any biblical-theological system of social ethics and political theory.
Such a view of Noah’s low-content covenant grants enormous authority to self-proclaimed autonomous man and his representative, the messianic State. The power-seeking covenant-breaker is as pleased with such a view of the State as the responsibility-fleeing Christian pietist is. This is why there is now and always has been an implicit judicial alliance between antinomian Christians and humanist statists. Here is an ideal way to silence Christians in all judicial matters except murder: insist that “The Bible doesn’t offer a blueprint for civil law!” With this judicial affirmation, antinomian, responsibility-fleeing Christians sound the retreat, and secular humanists and other covenant-breaking power-seekers sound the attack. The victim is in principle victimized ever further by this view of Noah’s drastically restricted covenant, and the messianic State is unchained by it. All this is accomplished in the name of a “higher” view of theistic ethics than the Mosaic law supposedly offered to the Israelites.
This supposed dichotomy between Noah’s covenantal sanctions and Moses’ covenantal sanctions, and also between Moses’ covenantal sanctions and Jesus’ covenantal sanctions, cannot survive a careful examination of the biblical principle of victim’s rights, which is also the principle of the judicially limited State. The biblical judicial principle is this: victims of criminal acts possess the God-granted legal right to specify no penalty or any penalty up to the maximum limit allowed by God’s Bible-revealed law. Neither the State nor the humanistic sociologist is entitled by God to increase or reduce this victim-specified penalty. But in order to keep the principle of victim’s rights from becoming tyrannical, God’s law specifies maximum penalties. Men must be restrained by law, including victims. To argue that there ever was, ever is, or ever will be a time when men are not under God’s specified judicial sanctions is to argue that they are under sanctions imposed by autonomous man, meaning the self-proclaimed autonomous State. In short, to argue this is inescapably to argue also that God has in history authorized either the tyranny of the unchained State or else the implicit subsidizing of criminal behavior through the State’s unwillingness to impose God’s specified sanctions. In either case, victims lose. This is what antinomians of all varieties refuse even to discuss, let alone answer biblically.
There will always be sanctions. The relevant questions are: Which sanctions? What laws? Who judges? There will always be judicial chains either attached to Satan (Rev. 20:1-2), his demonic host (II Pet. 2:4; Jude 6), and his covenantal earthly representatives, or else attached to the righteous victims of Satan’s covenantal representatives (Acts 12:7; 21:33). The modem antinomian Christian and the modern power-seeking statist want to break God’s judicial chain, His revealed law. The result is the victimization of the judicially innocent and the expansion of the messianic State.
Tyranny, Pious and Impious
So, what does this mean between Samudra — who has heard of Noah, but only Noah — and Terra, who has heard of Noah, Moses, Christ… and hostile alternatives, like Mohammed, Darwin, Kant, and Marx?
The Samudrans would not be destructive as the various atheistic collectivists: but their ignorance would still leave room for many dictators and oppressors to rule longer without a legitimate, lawful challenger to their tyranny, as the Samudrans just don’t know the Law well enough to fight for their freedom.
With plenty more “legal wiggle room”, tyrants will be able to keep their religious cloaks on longer, and it would be harder to set up the spiritual, moral and legal case to fight the oppressor. So, more God-Kings, Priestkings, God-Emperors, Deified Lords, etc. More Pharaohs who pay off the temple priests (or scientific institutes, universities, etc. as the tech level increases)… and in return the priests will be happy to proclaim the ruler to be a god (or the various equivalents: The Voice of the People, Dear Leader, etc.)
This is in contrast to Earth — “Terra” — in reality, where it is increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to properly ground a good tyranny in Christian theology.
“Too many commoners and too many non-conformists with too many Bibles… and too little respect for the priesthood and the pastorate.”
Naturally, other theologies – strictly naturalistic ones, of course – are now required to properly justify unfettered power in the West…
<Waves to the Collectivists of various stripes.>
…coupled with their Christian fellow-travellers, who have an equal hatred of God’s Law, but prefer to Make God Shut Up from the safety of the pulpit and within the various denominational bureaucracies.
This is a basic principle of biblical jurisprudence: men’s knowledge of God increases over time, and so does their personal and corporate responsibility. “The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more” (Luke 12:46-48).Victim’s Rights, by Gary North
There are a lot – A LOT – of clergymen who hate this truth, with a passion. I can already hear the cry:
“No Law except
Love the Law of Men!”
Which actually means, “No Law except the Law of (certain) Men!”
Wealthy and powerful men, of course.
The Right Sort.
The Best of Samudra
The Indian Emblem of India is the symbol of the Republic of India, formally called ‘National emblem’. It has four lions. The idea for this coat of arms was taken from the Sarnath Lion Capital that was built by Indian emperor Ashoka. It’s a pillar in the city of Sarnath. Ashoka built it around 250 BC using a single piece of polished sandstone. The symbol is invariably used on all types of currency notes, passports and coins of India. In the two dimensional view of this symbol, one can see 3 heads (the fourth being hidden from view). It was adopted on 26 January 1950, the day that India became a republic.
The lions represent royalty and pride.
The wheel beneath the lions is called the Ashoka Chakra or Dharmachakra comes from Buddhism, representing Truth and Honesty. The horse and the bull probably stand for the Strength (Mental) of the people of India. There are four Ashoka Chakras in total around the emblem and two horses and bulls each.
The verse written below, Satyamev Jayate is a very popular and revered saying in the ancient language Sanskrit. It can be divided phonetically into three words – Satyam, which means truth, Ev or aev, that is, only and Jayate which means wins or won. The whole verse can be translated as, ‘Only (the one who speaks) the truth will win or wins.’ This verse describes the power of honesty and truth in society and religion. You can lie to your friends, family, but you cannot lie to God and yourself. Your conscience will forever be stained.
The verse can also be translated as ‘The truth alone triumphs’. Meaning that even after all the lies and deceptions with which we have been fooled, the truth will finally emerge victorious.Simple English Wikipedia, Coat of Arms of India
That verse below the four-headed lion is called the Satyamev Jayate. As the Wikipedia quote mentions, it means something along the lines of “The truth alone triumphs”. The symbol comes from the Indian Mauryan Dynasty: it’s leader, Ashoka, is well-known as a warrior who shifted into a Buddhist philosopher-king after his very brutal victories.
This kind of rule is probably the best a pagan society can hope for. Admittedly, it towers far above whatever murderous nonsense, thuggish oppression, and “men are women if they say so!” arbitrary babble the secularists can come up with.
(Or the … dream of freezing time and ending change, for that matter.)
This still isn’t up to Biblical standards, though, which insists on limits on state power, and on justice for the victim, and not for some vague ‘society’ (another word for the State, in modern eyes.)
The Buddhists are wrong:
- the goal is not escape from reality, but repentance before God unto the salvation: for yourself, and the nations. Personal repentance and public justice is the Biblical goal.
- the world is not evil: it was made good, but we scared and poisoned it. There is a road for healing, though.
- the world is not governed by an impersonal moral machine, but by a personal Creator. Concern – including love and hate – mark His actions, not some emotionless detachment.
- Especially not some detachment from the plight of the poor, the unjustly harmed.
PS: Whoever came up with the Hindu idea of reincarnation —
“The poor and the crippled deserve to be poor and crippled! The disgusting inferior castes are right where they should be! They are supposed to grovel and suffer and beg: it’s to pay for their sins in a previous life!”
— deserves some high-grade Biblical Justice poured right on top of his head.
I don’t have the right to do that.
But God does.