Theonomy and the Perfect Law Code

Springboarding off of our previous discussion of the perfect law code, i.e., the single commandment of the creation mandate in Genesis 1 and 2, I want to discuss what one's view of secular law should look like when constructing a biblically consistent law code off of that perfect law code.

If the perfect law code is one that looks to create and preserve covenant human life then a Christian nation would construct laws that work toward both of these with creation of covenant human life as taking precedence. What I mean by this is that is that a Christian law code should look to govern in such a way so as to allow the church to do its mission of discipling the nations. This means that the laws set up would not interfere with but aid that mission.

This means, however, that if one makes the claim that our laws that govern unbelievers should reflect the Mosaic law code he would be going against the church's mission, and therefore, the perfect law code.

For example, the Mosaic law code commands that all who do not worship YHWH but rather another God must be put to death. This is a civil, not ceremonial law. YHWH is king and to not worship Him is to commit treason punishable by death. Likewise, constructing idols, engaging in sexual relations that do not create covenant human life, etc. are all to be met with the punishment of death. What this means is that ultimately everyone who practices a false religion and has sex, even in marriage, is to be put to death. But the Christian mission, consistent with the creation mandate that prioritizes the creation of covenant human life, is to convert the unbelievers. This is a little hard to do if they are all dead.

What would be consistent with the perfect law code of the creation mandate and the Christian mission is to have a minimal law that sought to preserve covenant human life but still allow unbelievers to morally and theologically sin against God in their deadness. In other words, a law that prevented harm to Christians and any interference of the Church's mission, but allowed the unbeliever to live in his ungodliness as an unregenerate individual. The Mosaic law code does not do this. That is because it is a civil law code not meant for the entire world but for a regenerate people, a saved people. It ended up killing Israel because many of them were not regenerate in the end and therefore were crushed by it. How much more would it crush the world that does not even make the claim to be the regenerate visible community of YHWH?

Hence, codes that are more minimal, like those found in Mesopotamia are instructive but might be augmented by the perfect justice found in the Mosaic law code. These laws deal with things like murder, theft, property rights, adultery, injury, rape, etc. These are things that seek to preserve life against those who would kill or harm it either directly or through the stealing of property. These laws have half of the creation mandate right in that they seek to preserve life. They have half wrong because they don't have the fullness of the mandate in the Christian mission as God's people do, which is to create and preserve covenant human life. But we can take the half that is consistent, evaluate what is more consistent in their laws and punishments with the Christian mission and creation mandate and end up with something much better than the Mosaic law code, not because the Mosaic law code isn't good, but because it is too good. Add Jesus' understanding of the law code to it and it's even better, so much better that anyone who does not obey it will perish. That's the problem of making it into a civil law code to govern unbelievers. It would likely kill believers. How much more unbelievers? And this would all be contrary to the mission of  the church, setting up a law that gets in the way of the church rather than giving it a clear path to do its job in the world.

If the Israelites Weren't Materialists Why Doesn't the Hebrew Bible Talk More about the Afterlife?

I wrote a post a while ago concerning whether the ancient Israelites were materialists and argued in the negative. They clearly have the view of their surrounding cultures when it comes to the existence of the immediate afterlife. Some would use Psalms like Psalm 88, for instance, to try to argue for a diversity of thought in the Hebrew Bible, as though there are some nihilistic materialists among the Israelites, but these texts often contrast the land of the living and what can be accomplished there versus the land of the dead and the ceasing of any accomplishments there. They are not meant to be statements about whether the afterlife exists.

But why doesn't the Hebrew Bible talk more about the afterlife if the people so clearly believe that there is one? I would argue that it is due to their teleological emphasis. Now, this teleology may not necessarily be different than that of the surrounding culture, depending upon what the surrounding culture is at the time, but there is a difference upon the emphasis that is placed on it.

In the Hebrew Bible, the end goal of all of God's people is not the afterlife, but rather the possession of the land of Israel as it rules the entire earth that is restored into a garden of Eden-like state. This is why land is so important and this belief evidences a belief in a physical resurrection of the people of Israel.

Much is made in scholarship of the fact that there may only be one resurrection passage in the Bible and it is a very late one (i.e., Dan 12:1-3). I would argue that this misunderstands the nature of the promises to Abraham and his descendants. In fact, the very promise tells us that it is to Abraham and his descendants, not just some of Abraham's descendants in the future.

In Genesis 13:14-17, 

The Lord said to Abram after Lot had parted from him, “Look around from where you are, to the north and south, to the east and west. All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring^[a] forever. I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone could count the dust, then your offspring could be counted. Go, walk through the length and breadth of the land, for I am giving it to you.”

To whom is God giving it? One could argue that God gives it to Abraham only because he gives it to his descendants, but that is not what is promised here. God does not say that I am giving this to your descendants, but rather I am giving this to you. Because he gives it to Abraham, he also gives it to his descendants. This is due to the idea of federal headship. What Abraham receives, his offspring receive. That means not only must Abraham receive it in order for the others to receive it, it means that everyone from Isaac forward must also receive it. The problem is that none of these people ever received it. In fact, it hasn't been received in the way it is promised both here and throughout the Law and the Prophets to this very day. 

What this means is that in order for this to be true, and in order for Abraham to have confidence that God would make this true of both him and his descendants, God must resurrect them all from the dead. Hence, Auctor argues this very point when discussing the Akedah in Hebrews 11:17-19. If Abraham was to receive the promise through Isaac, and God does not lie, then resurrection must be on the table.

Likewise, I would argue that the very analogies made in Isaiah, Hosea, and Ezekiel all have a literal referent in order for the analogies to work. But something even more important than this is the fact that the punishment of the wicked in the Hebrew Bible is removal from the land of the living represented by the garden, wilderness community, land of Israel, etc. Would the Israelites really believed that if they were faithful they would all ultimately removed from the land of the living? It doesn't make much sense if the punishment and the reward are the same in respect to the land that is promised to Abraham and his descendants.

Furthermore, in Isaiah 53, the suffering servant is both killed for the sins of Israel, even though innocent, but because of his innocence, he will receive the reward of long life and see his offspring. How exactly is that possible if he is dead?

My point then is that the Hebrew Bible does not talk about the immediate state of the afterlife very much because it focuses its people on the eternal state of resurrection and restoration of and to the land of the living/garden/earth/Israel in contrast to the wicked who are blown away from it like chaff. Why, then, talk about and describe a spiritual world if the end goal and hope is to possess the current one?


“I will deliver this people from the power of the grave;
    I will redeem them from death.
Where, O death, are your plagues?
    Where, O grave, is your destruction? (Hos 13:14)

Hence, Daniel 12:1-3 is simply an explicit statement of what is implicit throughout the Hebrew Bible.

“At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered.

Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.

What Is the Perfect Law Code?

Notice that I did not entitle this post, "What is the perfect law?" We know that the perfect law is the law of love, love of God and love of fellow covenant member, i.e., neighbor. My question instead is, "What is the perfect law code?"

I recently joined a Theonomy group on FB simply because I'm curious to know the various arguments and types of Theonomists. I wouldn't call myself a Theonomist, but the designation might be appropriate if it is understood in light of what I am about to say.

I got into a discussion with a particular Theonomist who was arguing that the Bible does not condemn sex with children, and therefore, it should not be considered a crime. To consider it a crime would be to go beyond God's Word that does not say it is a crime.

He used 1 Corinthians 4:6 to back up his hermeneutic that no one should go beyond what is written. I pointed out, of course, that 1 Corinthians 4:6 is not giving us a hermeneutic by which we might interpret Scripture and apply it, but rather it is not talking about not adding Greek philosophy and persuasive rhetoric to the gospel as though that should capture men's minds. Hence, it is the Spirit through the simple gospel message who does the work of capturing those who are being saved. Men are just the messengers and therefore should not be exalted nor their grasp of deep philosophy or rhetoric replace the Christian message of the gospel which lies at the foundation of all Christian unity and practice.

So I pointed out to him that the law is actually based on the creation mandate in Genesis 1-2. Jesus affirms this by pointing back to this law when evaluating a misuse of a particular law dealing with a divorce case in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Jesus does not bother quibbling about the law itself but points out that this law was a concession that dealt with an unjust situation where a man divorces a woman. Instead, Jesus appeals to the original creation, where a man and woman are made for the purpose of becoming one, and so refutes the Pharisaical interpretation that the law allowed for divorce and remarriage.

Likewise, Jesus' hermeneutic is to go beyond the explicit in the law to get at the creational principle behind it. Hence, it is not enough to simply refrain from murdering someone. One must also not degrade his humanity in any way. It is not enough to merely honor one's parents with his lips, but also to give money to them when they are in need. The Mosaic law does not say that though, which means that the Mosaic law code is not the perfect law code. It is perfect in the sense that it is not flawed or containing error, but it is not perfect in the sense that it is exhaustive and complete.

Notice, Jesus does not negate the Mosaic law in any way. He merely acknowledges that the law is good and right, but that one can misinterpret it if he or she thinks it is exhaustive. This means that the laws in the Mosaic law code, or codes, is representative, not exhaustive. The law is simply filled with examples of the larger principle found in creation, mainly, that what creates and preserves the life of covenant people is good/ordered/creational and what works against that is evil/disordered/chaotic. This means that the Mosaic law code, though good and perfect in one sense, is insufficient if one is looking for every example of good one can do or evil from which one should refrain.

This is why Paul argues that the one who steals no longer (i.e., obeys the Mosaic law of not stealing) must also now work to provide for anyone who is in need. The latter is not implied in the law of not stealing, but both not stealing and providing for covenant members is implicit in the creation mandate.

What this means is that the creation mandate, not the Mosaic law code, is the perfect law code simply because all of the laws both in the OT and the NT are implicit within it. It also means that other laws not mentioned in the Bible but that are implicit in the creation mandate are also meant to be obeyed by Christians. Hence, sex with children is wrong because it works against the creation mandate. Children cannot have procreative sex. It is therefore forbidden and would carry with it the same penalties as those found in texts condemning unproductive sexual activity (e.g., Lev 18).

What this means is that the perfect law of love, not only looks to the Mosaic moral law for examples to follow in order to love God and other covenant members, but first and foremost to the principle of the creation mandate the governs all law codes within the Bible.

The Identification and Solution of White Privilege and Systemic Racism

One of the frustrating things about the current social climate is the cult-like atmosphere of having to hold certain mantras. It reminds me of watching Mormon speakers and hearing, “I believe in the Book of Mormon and that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God,” or the Muslim mantra “Allah is God and Mohammed is his prophet.” In the same way, one must affirm the truth of phrases like “white privilege” or “systemic racism” in order to be seen as a good and decent human being worthy to be received by the ruling mob.

I personally believe that this movement is filled with misidentifications of the problem, and therefore, misidentifications of the solution but I do want to note that I do believe that white privilege and systemic racism exist. They’re just not as cut and dry as most people think they are.

For one, the real issue with privilege is actually classism. Race comes in only when a particular race is in the majority and decides to keep other races out of its elite classes, but this in no way means that everyone of that race is in the elite class, has power therefore to keep races out of it, or even benefits from it. I have a feeling, affirmed by having multiple people explain white privilege and systemic racism to me, that what most people are picturing when they say “white” is actually “upper class white.” No one is looking at the homeless guy who inherited a long history of poverty from his impoverished family line as having white privilege, nor could one make the argument that his life is somehow slightly better as a white homeless man that it would have been had he been a black homeless man. Is it really appropriate to compare the white homeless man to a rich black congressman and say that the rich black congressman would have been richer had he been white and the white homeless man would have been even worse off had he been black, and therefore, the white guy has privilege the rich black congressman doesn’t?

Likewise, systemic racism doesn’t involve all people, but only the elite class of white people in the West. I absolutely agree that any culture where one race is dominant there tends to be privilege given to that dominant race by the dominant race, but such privilege tends to be granted by the upper class in that society where the lower classes have little to no ability to grant access or deny it to anyone. Do you think that white people get the same opportunity for employment in places dominated by other races in other countries?

I grant that the West is a bit unique in that it has become made up of multiple races, and because of this, the injustices of privilege are going to be more pronounced than in many countries that simply have one race (although you can see the same injustices applied in these countries based on tribal affiliation, religion, etc.).

So I think it is absolutely true that there is systemic racism that has prevented black people from entering into the upper classes so that they had to work extra hard and jump numerous obstacles their white counterparts did not have to in order to get a leg up. Going from slavery to the upper class was a much longer road than anyone else of another race had to take in our culture. Hence, white elite class privilege existed and exists if those elite whites are still elite as a result of their ancestry. It no longer exists if they have no such inheritance.

Of course, there is also much confusion over the idea that all elite white people became elite from slavery. This actually isn’t true. People were rich long before they came to America. Many became rich apart from the slave trade or owning any slaves at all. Some were always opposed to it. Some just had nothing to do with it. Most of those actually guilty were either killed or impoverished in that big war we had between the North and the South. If it is simply a matter of guilt by benefiting from another person’s evil then everyone in the world is guilty of all sorts of crimes committed by others throughout history, but God does not tally sins in such ways unless those sins are continued by the individuals who benefit from them. Indeed, such would make even black people guilty having been ancestors of black people who kidnapped and sold other black people into slavery, and thus, having benefited from the wealth made by slavery with the rest of America, they would become guilty as well. Other races who were involved in the slave trade and have benefited from it in the butterfly effects of the modern-day would also be guilty.

But let’s say for a moment that it really is every white person alone in the world who has privilege. What does justice look like now? Does justice mean that they should be given less favor in order for the disadvantaged to be given more? Does it mean we take away what belongs to them in order to give it to others with less privilege? The Bible would argue that this is actually unjust and something the wicked do.

You shall not follow the crowd in wrongdoing. When you testify in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd. And do not show favoritism to a poor man in his lawsuit. (Exod 23:2-3)

I find this verse rather interesting since we are being led along by mob justice these days. As long as the mob agrees justice is taking away from those who have, as long as they’re a particular color, in order to give to those who do not, again, as long as they’re a particular color, then suddenly it is. 

You must not pervert justice; you must not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the rich; you are to judge your neighbor fairly. (Leviticus 19:15)

This verse in particular is talking about a fellow Christian. Now we are talking about doing what is unjust to a fellow believer because of his class. Notice, some people had the tendency to hate the rich and be in favor of the poor instead. Others gave favor to the rich and so did wrong by them. God tells His people that they are to do neither. They are not to be partial which means that they are not to take into consideration factors of class when they are judging one another.

Show no partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike. Do not be intimidated by anyone, for judgment belongs to God. (Deut 1:17)

Again, “small and great” refer to those who have no privilege and those who do. You are to hear both out fairly and not be bullied into favoring one over the other.

Micah 2:6-9 is particularly interesting because many people thought they had the right to take away the privilege inherited by the rich. Yet, God sees this as their covetous depravity.

“Do not prophesy,” their prophets say. “Do not prophesy about these things; disgrace will not overtake us.”

You descendants of Jacob, should it be said, “Does the LORD become impatient? Does he do such things?” “Do not my words do good to the one whose ways are upright?

Lately my people have risen up like an enemy. You strip off the rich robe from those who pass by without a care, like men returning from battle.

You drive the women of my people from their wealthy homes. You take away my blessing from their children forever.

What this passage actually tells us is that what the upper class have has been given to them by God through inheritance. Notice, again, the fear of being bullied and so their false prophets tell them not to speak against these acts. Justice isn't righting all of the wrongs of the past and making everyone the same class with the same privilege, but being fair to everyone, rich or poor, by allowing them to keep what God has allotted to them. This means they should not be unfairly treated by the law, nor have any possessions that belong to them taken from them, nor be shorted in anything that is owed to them.

The wrench in all of this is the fact that it is not simply a matter of privilege due to merely being the majority race in our country, but a history of racial injustice beginning by buying black (kidnapped) slaves, something expressly forbidden and carrying with it the death penalty in Scripture (Exod 21:16) and placing them in conditions where thriving was next to impossible. 

What should be done here to right this wrong? First, nothing can be done to right the wrong apart from Christ’s death or the death of those guilty because nothing can be done to right any wrong like those that have been committed but death. Blacking out one's FB profile, getting on one's knees, or marching and breaking things for justice sake isn't the penalty in the law for these crimes. Death is. Yet, the people who did this and who the Bible would consider guilty are dead already and the Bible forbids that any man should be put to death for the sins of his ancestors when he has divorced himself from them and has not repeated them himself (Deut 24:16; Ezekiel 18). This means that no one, as long as he has not continued the racist acts of years gone by, is guilty before God of these acts, and to claim that they are is to speak against God, bear false witness against your neighbor, and to do the very injustice once delivered upon a people merely because of the color of their skin. As the wise priest in the Count of Monte Christo once said, "Do not become guilty of the crime for which you now serve the sentence."

What is the way forward then? For Christians, the cross is the only way forward. All injustice has been settled there in the blood of Christ for all who believe and if any current racism in the church is to be destroyed it must be destroyed there. Christians should help Christians wherever they can regardless of race because blood is thicker than skin color and we are one Body with one another.

For the unbeliever, he will defy God’s Word, bear false witness against those who are not guilty according to God, seek out unjust vengeance upon those who are not guilty, and end his world in death and destruction of the innocent. He will rob and deal unfairly with the privileged because there is no just rationality in the wicked mind. Men will continue to be tyrants one way or another. They will commit atrocities against one another and find multiple ways (color, class, tribe, team, gang, etc.) of justifying their bloodlust. And they will do this because the real problem isn’t racism, class, or gender. The real problem is that man is evil from his earliest days on. The only remedy, therefore, is a transformation of nature through the gospel of Christ and all who come to Him, of every nation, tribe and language, will forever sit enthroned over all creation. And that is a privilege every Christian seeks to have and keep.

Is God Only Good in Calvinism?

I would like to propose an argument. Maybe it's been made before. I just don't know.

In Calvinism, God decrees all things, including horrible things, because He has a purpose for them to bring about good. This is the message of Genesis that ends in the statement of 50:20, "You purposed it for evil, but God purposed it for good, to bring about the salvation of many lives."

Hence, evil existing in the world has an ultimate good purpose so that God who brought about these things remains good. Like a doctor who uses the poison of chemotherapy, not to harm and murder, but to do good and save life, and so is doing good and not evil, God decrees and brings about these things to do good and save. God, therefore, is good.

This is contrary to the common statement made by freewill theists that God is evil because He decrees and wills these evils to occur.

However, I would like to turn this on its head. If God does not decree the evils of the world and bring them about for good, then these things have no good purpose. They are only the product of evil men doing evil, and therefore, they are evil acts with only evil purposes.

Yet, God, in the free will view, knows either beforehand or during their happening, that these evils will or are occurring and has either made the men and situations in which they would occur or refuses to stop them when they are occurring. What this means is that since they are opposed to God's decretive will, but not prevented by God either by His not making the men who would become evildoers beforehand or stopping them while they are committing evils, God is responsible for the evil occurring. Yet, because it has no good purpose, and is only an undesired result of making men with free will, the act is only evil with an evil purpose, as said before. This means that God is responsible for evil acts that are only evil and not good. Hence, God is the author of evil, doing evil, and therefore, evil.

It is only the Calvinist who can say that God is good, therefore, because God has decreed these things in accordance with His will to have a good purpose, and they exist in the world ultimately for that reason. Even though their secondary causes do so for evil purposes, they function as the means through which the ends which are good are brought about. Hence, like the use of poison, one can use it for death or for life, evil or good, and the purpose dictates the moral evil or goodness of the act.

Do Us All a Favor and Bulldoze the Bible College

We're going through the Book of Ezekiel right now and a theme emerges again and again throughout the book that judgment starts at the sanctuary and moves out from there. This pattern of God's judgment starting with those responsible to religiously govern is seen elsewhere in the Bible. The idea is simply that if the religious community is corrupted with false religion and practice it is the fault of those who were to teach them otherwise. Instead, these religious leaders are swayed by the cultural folk religious winds and waves of doctrine and so end up affirming the people in their falsehoods and evils, which, in their own eyes, seem true and good. Likewise, the religious community, which is now darkness instead of light, was to be a mediating light for the world around it, so that God was patient toward the world and did not destroy it. Once the light is removed, there is no mediation between God and the pagan, and thus, patience comes to an end and the world is judged. This domino effect is seen in most of the prophetic books (e.g., Isaiah, Ezekiel, etc.).

So how would one stop this judgment in our own culture? We must identify the center. Who has taken upon themselves the crown of religious authority in our religious culture. Our first thought might be the church itself. Certainly, this is true to some extent. These local churches are proclaiming a message of the Enlightenment that is equivalent to churches in Latin American culture affirming to the people that they need to pray to the saints and Mary in the same way that culture used to pray to various deities in their pagan religions or churches in Africa end up affirming the syncretism between the Christian message and voodoo or tribal animism.

However, it is not merely the local church that came up with these ideas. They are often first and foremost nurtured in the cradle of the Western Bible college or seminary. Certainly, the mainline churches fell a long time ago when their seminaries and colleges were completely consumed by the Enlightenment cult. The same takeover has been occurring for years in what many considered more orthodox institutions. In my last year at Moody Bible Institute, the R.A.'s were informed that Moody would be employing a system of affirmative action where people of color would be considered over anyone who was white in an effort to bring about equity. Twenty-five years later, Moody is a hub of the social gospel and social justice that must assume a contrary message to the justice and gospel of Christ, something that even Walter Rauschenbusch affirmed and argued that orthodox Christianity could not be the foundation for the social gospel because of its contrary theological presuppositions and goals.

Southeastern Baptist Seminary, Bethel, etc. are all currently in the process of siding with those who adopt this syncretism of the Enlightenment high places (lookup the downgrade controversy at Southern Seminary on Youtube).

It seems to me that much of the problem is that we have outsourced the authority of Western Christianity to the seminary, and it has become the center of the problem. What is the solution? Well, if I were to have all my dreams come true, the study that goes on in the modern seminary and Bible college would be moved to the local churches and the Bible colleges and seminaries would be abolished.

You might then say that the problem will just be moved to the local church, and this may be true, but I want to also say that I think that when Christians are disobedient in the structure of their ministries it merely becomes an eventual instrument of the devil to distort Christianity. It's like the woman on Facebook refuting the teachings of elders and then exercising authoritative discipline over them by condemning them in some way and even socially excommunicating them in some way. She is already disobedient. She now is the perfect instrument of the devil to use and so she often is used to speak against orthodox Christianity and support the syncretism of our modern high places, i.e., syncretized folk religion.

In the same way, God set up no seminary or Bible college or any parachurch organization for that matter as something that He would guide into truth apart from the local church in submission to a group of qualified elders. Christ gave gifts to the local church and Bible or seminary professor wasn't one of them. Hence, if the church continues to be disobedient in setting up unbiblical organizations as authoritative institutions that give the church its instruction, those organizations set themselves up as perfect instruments to be used by the devil to support his distorted message.

But judgment does not happen right away, so many will respond to such a statement with plenty of statements regarding the beneficial education they received from Bible college or seminary. Indeed, a piece of fruit is still fresh for some time when pulled from the tree, but after some time, it eventually will rot because no life source is connected to it.

So what would I suggest? Immediately, defund all seminaries and Bible colleges that are not extensions of a particular local church and under its authority and fund churches so that they can financially support a plurality of elders who are qualified to train other elders with the same academic rigor in which one would train pastors at a seminary. I would do the same for all parachurch organizations (e.g., TGC, missions organizations, etc.). It's time to realize that judgment has come upon our seminaries and Bible colleges because God is starting at the center. They are being given over to deception because they did not love the truth in its biblical purity and were not obedient to submit to God's institutions in the first place. God gave them no authority to be the teachers of the church, but they took it, and with it, therefore, they took the responsibility and the first judgment of the culture that comes with it.

Let those who wish to pursue professorships in universities, but let them have no sway over the training of pastors. But, alas, it is likely too late. Judgment has come to the center and moves out now to the local church then to the larger Christian community and finally to the world. Perhaps, the hour is just too late to have done anything about this. Perhaps, what was viewed as the church's expansion in the West will actually be the source of its demise. I continue to pray otherwise.

The Use and Abuse of Micah 6:8 as a Supporting Text for Social Justice

"He has shown thee, O man, what is good and what the Lord requires of thee, but to do eisegesis and to love misapplication and to walk arrogantly with your misguided dogmatism."

One would think this is actually what the verse says given the way it is mishandled by layman and preacher alike. The actual verse reads:

הגיד לך אדם מה טוב ומה יהוה דורש ממך כי אם עשׁות משפט ואהבת חסד והצנע לכת עם אלהיך 

He has revealed to you, O man, what is good,

and what the Lord seeks from you: 

That you do justice, you love hesed, and you live carefully with your God.

There are numerous issues here, but the first thing we should talk about is that this is not talking about what you do with unbelievers or is in any way a justification for activity that seeks to make the world more just apart from its reconciliation to God through the gospel of Christ. 

In fact, God is telling Israel how they are to destroy the wicked world, to crush the nations and their enemies. Their doing justice will bring about the destruction of the secular world, not its living in peace and harmony apart from YHWH.

Here are a few passages in Micah that display the result of Israel being just. 

"Rise and thresh, Daughter Zion, for I will make your horns iron and your hooves bronze so you can crush many peoples. Then you will set apart their plunder for the LORD, their wealth for the Lord of the whole earth." (4:13)

"Then the remnant of Jacob will be among the nations, among many peoples, like a lion among animals of the forest, like a young lion among flocks of sheep, which tramples and tears as it passes through, and there is no one to rescue them. Your hand will be lifted up against your adversaries, and all your enemies will be destroyed." (5:8-9)

"Then my enemy will see, and she will be covered with shame, the one who said to me, “Where is the LORD your God? ” My eyes will look at her in triumph; at that time she will be trampled like mud in the streets. " (7:10)

Second to this, the phrase is עשׁות משפט "do justice," not "make the world just." So the command would be for believers to do what is right, not whine about unbelievers not doing what is right.

Third to this, משפט "justice" is referring to right judgments one makes in terms of acting out what is right, and what is right according to Micah is to destroy all of the false religions in our midst and all who do what is wrong. In the biblical context of the Torah, justice means that those who worship other gods or have a syncretism of Yahwistic and pagan religions are to be executed. Furthermore, all criminals of a violent nature would be executed in order to do justice. That would mean that any violent criminal should actually be killed by the police if they were doing justice as believers in the context of Old Testament Israel. 

Fourth, this is to the covenant community about the covenant community. In other words, this is how some in the community of God are doing evil to others in the community of God, as well as the world that is doing evil to the covenant community. Justice means that all of these are removed from among them and destroyed. No peace and harmony and working together with unbelievers who are agents of chaos and followers of other gods to build a better society.

Fifth, terms like "good," "hesed," "humbly" all have covenant connotations to them. "Good" refers to that which is ordered and creational. "Hesed" refers to the love one has for God's people that goes above and beyond what is required and is often translated "covenant faithfulness" by many scholars. "Humbly" has to do with being careful to pay attention to what God has said and the phrase "to walk humbly with your God" refers to the idea that the covenant community is to pay attention and live out what God has said rather than take it out of context and do something else, as many here are doing.

Sixth, (I posted something to this effect on fb earlier), if all Christians, as spiritual Israel, follow Micah 6:8 in context, we should excommunicate everyone from the church who is of another religion or has syncretized Christianity with a false religion like Enlightenment inclusivism or religious ideas like social justice and egalitarianism (1:7; 3:5-7; 6:16) and anyone taking away the possessions of both poor and rich believers or harming or speaking against them for merely being poor or rich (2:2, 8). In other words, remove the wicked and save the godly. That’s what justice means in this text. The spiritual equivalent for the church is to remove all unrepentant “believers” from it in church discipline. So I expect a lot of Christians posting this to stop talking about justice for unbelievers and start cleaning up their churches. Try posting that on your wall and see how many people still think you’re woke. 

Hence, Micah has nothing to do with social justice issues among the pagans. The Bible does not tell us to right the wrongs of the world by preaching the law to them, but rather calls the church to call them out of the world through the gospel and into the glorious kingdom of the Savior. It further calls us to clean our own house from false religion and unbiblical ethics as the holy nation we are supposed to be.