| Let's start with a summary of Theonomy. |
|
"Theonomy" means "God's Law." Paul Baumbartner has posted some anti-Theonomy material on Facebook in response to this post of mine:
|
If Theonomy is Obsolete, so is The Gospel. |
As a Theonomist, I believe Jesus is my Savior because He loves me. God is Love.
But
I also believe that Jesus is my Lord, because He commands me, because He is holy and
righteous.
Jesus commands me to have a "Theonomic" view of the
Scriptures ("the Old Testament").
It seems to me that non-Theonomists
deny the righteousness, justice, and holiness of God.
Let's review Paul Baumgartner's comments and see if this is true.
| Let's start with a summary of Theonomy. |
|
|
Surely Paul Baumgartner can agree with Theonomists this far. |
1. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are, in part and in whole, a verbal revelation from God through the words of men, being infallibly true regarding all that they teach on any subject. |
|
Surely Paul Baumgartner can agree with Theonomists this far. |
2. Since the Fall it has always been unlawful to use the law of God in hopes of establishing one's own personal merit and justification, in contrast or complement to salvation by way of promise and faith; commitment to obedience is but the lifestyle of faith, a token of gratitude for God's redeeming grace. |
|
Surely Paul Baumgartner can agree with Theonomists this far. |
3. The word of the Lord is the sole, supreme, and unchallengeable standard for the actions and attitudes of all men in all areas of life; this word naturally includes God's moral directives (law). |
|
Surely Paul Baumgartner can agree with Theonomists this far. |
4.Our obligation to keep the law of God cannot be judged by any extrascriptural standard, such as whether its specific requirements (when properly interpreted) are congenial to past traditions or modern feelings and practices. |
| Paul Baumgartner should agree with Theonomists on this, but he probably won't. But why not? Why should we presume from the outset that the Word of God is no longer the Word of God? Does God change? Why should we presume that His standard of morality would change? There is nothing in the Scriptures written before the "New Testament" that suggests that God's standard of morality would change. Shouldn't we presume changelessness unless subsequent revelation would tell us otherwise? | 5. We should presume that Old Testament standing laws[note26] continue to be morally binding in the New Testament, unless they are rescinded or modified by further revelation.[note27] |
The Old Testament itself tells us that there
would be a change in the priesthood, and those ordinances which direct
sinners on path that leads to restoration of fellowship with God. Greg
Bahnsen, in his book Theonomy in Christian Ethics, pp. 208-209, notes:
But while the priestly path to restore a sinner was intended by the Word of God to change, the standard of sin itself does not change. 1 John 3:4 says sin is the transgression of the law. See more on commands to exterminate Canaanites here. |
26. Standing law" is used here for policy directives applicable over time to classes of individuals (e.g., do not kill; children, obey your parents; merchants, have equal measures; magistrates, execute rapists), in contrast to particular directions for an individual (e.g., the order for Samuel to anoint David at a particular time and place) or positive commands for distinct incidents (e.g., God's order for Israel to exterminate certain Canaanite tribes at a certain point in history). |
| Is Paul Baumgartner a Dispensationalist? | 27. By contrast, it is characteristic of dispensational theology to hold that Old Covenant commandments should be a priori deemed as abrogated - unless repeated in the New Testament (e.g., Charles Ryrie, "The End of the Law," Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. 124 [1967], pp. 239-242). |
|
Surely Paul Baumgartner can agree with Theonomists on this. |
6. In regard to the Old Testament law, the New Covenant surpasses the Old Covenant in glory, power, and finality (thus reinforcing former duties). The New Covenant also supersedes the Old Covenant shadows, thereby changing the application of sacrificial, purity, and "separation" principles, redefining the people of God, and altering the significance of the promised land. |
| This is really the heart of Paul Baumgartner's
argument against Theonomy. Paul Baumgartner posts verse after verse after verse
showing that "the New Covenant surpasses the Old Covenant in glory, power,
and finality," and verses which show that "The New Covenant also
supersedes the Old Covenant shadows, thereby changing the application of
sacrificial, purity, and 'separation' principles, redefining the people of God,
and altering the significance of the promised land." All of this
Theonomists agree with, as Point #6 demonstrates.
But we need to be more specific. The New Covenant is not better than the Old Covenant because the Old Covenant permitted murder, anger, lust, and adultery, while the New Covenant prohibits murder, anger, lust, and adultery. No, the moral standard is the same in both Covenants, because God's moral standard is an unchanging reflection of God's unchanging moral character. Two things have changed. First, God's unchanging moral standard is "written on the hearts" of believers in the New Covenant, so that unlike members of the Old Covenant, New Covenant believers live lives that are pleasing to God. Second, when they sin ("sin" being the transgression of God's Law - 1 John 3:4), believers under the New Covenant do not have to rely on the daily sacrifices of animals under the Levitical Priesthood. Jesus is our spotless Lamb and our eternal High Priest. But the moral standard that defines sin is the same. |
Bahnsen continues: |
|
Surely Paul Baumgartner can agree with Theonomists on this. |
7. God's revealed standing laws are a reflection of His immutable moral character and, as such, are absolute in the sense of being non-arbitrary, objective, universal, and established in advance of particular circumstances (thus applicable to general types of moral situations). |
|
Surely Paul Baumgartner can agree with Theonomists on this. |
8. Christian involvement in politics calls for recognition of God's transcendent, absolute, revealed law as a standard by which to judge all social codes. |
|
Surely Paul Baumgartner can agree with Theonomists on this. |
9. Civil magistrates in all ages and places are obligated to conduct their offices as ministers of God, avenging divine wrath against criminals and giving an account on the Final Day of their service before the King of kings, their Creator and Judge. |
| We should presume that God's Laws governing
the family continue. The Apostle Paul does in Ephesians 6:1-3. We should presume that God's Laws governing each individual should continue. Murder, theft, and adultery are still sinful (Romans 13:8-10). But what about laws that direct the steps of those involved in "matters at the gate," the place of social or civil authority in the Old Testament. Shouldn't we presume that those engaged in socio-political action should maintain the same standards of ethics as those in similar situations in the Old Testament? Why not? What is the Scripture that would tell us that God's standard of socio-political authority has in any way been slackened or weakened or abolished altogether? |
10. The general continuity which we presume with respect to the moral standards of the Old Testament applies just as legitimately to matters of socio-political ethics as it does to personal, family, or ecclesiastical ethics. |
| Should murderers be executed? Seems that's what God commanded Noah in the Older Testament. But if we presume that the commandments God gave to Noah (and everyone else in the Old Covenant) are abrogated, is there any verse in the New Testament which commands anyone to execute murderers? Romans 12 says we are to leave vengeance to God. Does that not imply that Christians are not to punish any criminals -- even murderers or rapists? Where is the command in the New Covenant for any Christian to execute a rapist and serial murderer? | 11. The civil precepts of the Old Testament (standing 'judicial" laws) are a model of perfect social justice for all cultures, even in the punishment of criminals. Outside of those areas where God's law prescribes their intervention and application of penal redress, civil rulers are not authorized to legislate or use coercion (e.g., the economic marketplace).* |
|
Surely Paul Baumgartner can agree with Theonomists on this. |
12. The morally proper way for Christians to correct social evils which are not under the lawful jurisdiction of the state is by means of voluntary and charitable enterprises or the censures of the home, church, and marketplace - even as the appropriate method for changing the political order of civil law is not violent revolution, but dependence upon regeneration, re-education, and gradual legal reform. |
|
Surely Paul Baumgartner can agree with Theonomists on this.
|
Notice what these principles tell us about the theological and moral character of theonomic ethics. The foundational authority of scripture (#1) and the precious truth of salvation by grace alone (#2) provide the context within which every other theonomic thesis is developed and understood. "Theonomic" ethics is committed to developing an overall Christian world-and-life-view (#3) according to the regulating principle of sola Scriptura (#4) and the hermeneutic of covenant theology (#5). The new and better covenant established by Christ does offer Biblical warrant for recognizing changes in covenantal administration (#6), but not changes in moral standards, lest the divinely revealed ethic be reduced to situationism or relativism -- just one tribal perspective among many in the evolutionary history of ethics (#7). Righteousness and justice, according to Biblical teaching, have a universal character, precluding any double-standard of morality. |
| Since Paul presumes that the Old Testament commands to "Honor father and mother" (Exodus 20:12, in Ephesians 6:1-3) and not to muzzle the ox or any other laborer (Deuteronomy 25:4 in 1 Corinthians 9:8-10) are still morally obligatory, what is the New Testament evidence that this same presumption of moral continuity does not pertain to those taking responsibility for criminals? | "Theonomic" ethics likewise rejects legal positivism and maintains that there is a "law above the (civil) law" to which appeal can be made against the tyranny of rulers and the anarchy of overzealous reformers alike (#9). Since Jesus Christ is Lord over all (cf. #3), civil magistrates are His servants and owe obedience to His revealed standards for them (#9). There is no Biblically based justification (cf. #5) for exempting civil authorities from responsibility to the universal standards of justice (cf. #7) found in God's Old Testament revelation (#10). Therefore, in the absence of Biblically grounded argumentation which releases the civil magistrate from Old Testament social norms (cf. #5, #6), it follows from our previous premises that in the exercise of their offices rulers are morally responsible to obey the revealed standards of social justice in the Old Testament law (#11). This does not mean, however, that civil rulers have unlimited authority to intrude just anywhere into the affairs of men and societies (# 11 #12); their legitimate sphere is restricted to what God's word has authorized them to do -- thus calling for a limited role for civil government. Finally, Christians are urged to use persuasive and "democratic" means of social reform - nothing like the strong-arm tactics slanderously attributed to the theonomic program (#12).[note28] |
| I personally disagree with Bahnsen on several issues, as did Rushdoony and Gary North, but for purely Theonomic reasons. | 28. For example, the main thrust of a widely read article on theonomic ethics by Rodney Clapp in Christianity Today, vol. 31, no. 3 (Feb. 20, 1987), was captured in its title: "Democracy as Heresy." He recklessly accuses theonomists of seeking "the abolition of democracy" (p. 17), when surely Clapp is aware that the word 'democracy' is susceptible to an incredibly wide range of definitions and connotations (e.g., from an institution of direct rule by every citizen without mediating representatives to a governmental procedure where representatives are voted in and out of office by the people, to the simple concepts of majority vote or social equality, etc.). Theonomists are opposed to some of those ideas, but surely not to what is commonly understood by the word: namely, democratic procedures for choosing representatives to rule. Indeed, in reply to Mr. Clapp's inflammatory rhetoric, Dr. Gary North very appropriately pointed out as a historian the irony that it was precisely our Puritan (and theonomic) forefathers who fought for and established this kind of "democracy" in the Western world! |
For the most part, Baumgartner's posts are on the left, and my replies are on the right. I'm replying as I read through them for the first time.
Paul Baumgartner Theonomy is Anti-Christ.https://www.facebook.com/pages/Theonomy-Is-Wrong/1561178007457772?fref=ts
Christian Responsibility and Mosaic Law |
|
| May 03, 2012 | |
| Run John run the law commands but gives me neither feet nor hands far better news the gospel brings it bids me fly and gives me wings Unknown author, attributed to John Bunyan (1628-1688) or John Berridge (1716-1793) |
The FAA requires pilots to file a
"Flight Plan" before they take their plane into the skies. God's Law
is the "flight plan" for earth-bound pilots like us. Don't leave home
without it.
God's Law doesn't propel the plane, it just keeps it from colliding with another plane in mid-air |
| What are Christians to do with the Old Testament law? | Ask Jesus (Matthew 7:19). |
| Skeptics cry “foul” and claim hypocrisy and inconsistency in our application of prohibitions against actions such as homosexual behavior (Lev. 18:1-30; 20:1-27) while neglecting restrictions regarding outfits, agricultural techniques and haircuts (Lev. 19:1-37). How can Christians enforce some laws and ignore others? Surely this is nothing more than deceptive and selective reading, right? | |
| Even Christians are confused. Some think we should be living more intentionally according to the tenets of the Torah (torah is the Hebrew word for law, commandment or statute), and most are simply ignorant as to why their food, clothes and lives should not more closely approximate the forms of the Old Testament. | Read all the verses with the word "torah" in it, and then read the New Testament the way fist-century Christians read it. |
| What are we to make of and do with the law? | |
What is the Law? |
|
| First, it is helpful to define our terms. What does the word “law” mean? Well, really it depends on who is using it and the context in which it is being used. | |
| Even in the Scriptures, there are various uses of the term. In the New Testament, the term “law” can be used of the entire Old Testament (Rom. 3:19), the particular commands of the Old Testament given to Moses (Matt. 5:17; Luke 24:44) and even the improper use of the Old Testament (Rom. 6:14). John Piper has provided the following grid for helping interpret the various uses: “Whenever you read the word ‘law’ in the New Testament, ask yourself: is this the OT, or the writings of Moses, or the legalistic distortion of Moses’ teaching?” | The Bible uses the word "law" in many other ways. Paul speaks of "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:2). He says "the law is holy, and the commandment holy, just, and good" (Romans 7:12). There is, he says, "another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members" (Romans 7:23). Jesus speaks of "the Law and the prophets" (Matthew 5:17-20). |
| It is important to note that no definition of “law” will perfectly capture every nuance of every use, so we will restrict ourselves to the prescriptions and prohibitions commanded as conditions of the Mosaic covenant (described throughout Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers and basically reaffirmed in Deuteronomy). | What about the
Law God gave before Moses:
And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto
thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth
be blessed; Genesis 18:17-19 |
| Though the Pentateuch1 contains a collection of hundreds of various “laws,” the Bible often speaks of the “law” in the singular, and we will use this same convention. | |
| These various statutes of the law include everything from the obvious Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:1-17; Deut. 5:1-21) to the more obscure and, frankly, odd. Consider the following: | I would tremble to call God's Word "odd." Especially since God's Word is God (John 1:1) |
| Leviticus 19:19 | |
| Leviticus 19:27 | |
| Leviticus 15:19–20 | |
| Exodus 34:26 | |
| Deuteronomy 22:12 | |
| We might also mention the various commands regarding homosexuality, slavery and the conquest of Canaan which many find to be intolerant, primitive and shameful. Such laws sound foreign to most of us. The fact is, they are foreign to most of us. The vast majority of us don’t boil goats, and even if we did, it would never occur to us to do so in its mother’s milk. Most of us do not sew our own clothes or plant our own food. Some of us can’t even grow a beard; much less mar its edges. | This is breathtaking. Insulting the Word of God is equivalent to insulting God Himself. |
| How are we to understand our Christian obligation toward these laws in light of the extreme cultural distance and, more importantly, the gospel? | Every Theonomist agrees that God's Law must be applied to every culture. If a culture does not entertain on the roofs of houses, no "parapet" is required. But cultures are sometimes evil, and they must be changed according to God's Blueprints. |
Why was the Law Given? |
|
| In order to understand our current responsibility toward the law, it is helpful to discuss the intent of the law as it was originally given to the nation of Israel. | |
| The law is good (Rom. 7:12) if viewed properly and used for that for which it was intended (1 Tim. 1:8). Unfortunately, people naturally tend to conceive the law as a means of justification, something it is unable to provide (Rom. 3:20; Gal. 2:16). As John Stott writes, “The function of the law was not to bestow salvation, however, but to convince men of their need of it.” | There is nothing in the Bible that
indicates that "people naturally tend to conceive the law as a means of
justification." This is an anti-Theonomic myth. The Bible says people
naturally hate the Law of God.
When natural people want justification -- to claim themselves as just -- they don't appeal to the lofty standards of God's Holy Law, they appeal to other laws, human laws and traditions. The Pharisees, for example were castigated by Jesus because they abrogated God's Law and substituted their own human traditions: Many people think that Theonomists are "Pharisees" and "legalists." But Jesus says His disciples are more righteous than those who use God's Word for their own selfish purposes:
The religious leaders of Jesus' day were "hypocrites," as Jesus repeatedly said. Outwardly they postured as Theonomists, but they were actually committed to evading God's Law, not putting it into practice. The legalistic religious leaders were the enemies of God and the enemies of Theonomy:
The Pharisees were not Theonomists. Theonomists are not Pharisees. Theonomists are "Bibliolators." |
| To further expound the original intent without exhausting the topic, let us consider a few of the main uses of the law. | |
Reason 1: to distinguish |
It is misleading to answer the question "Why was the Law Given?" by saying that it was intended to "distinguish" Israel from other nations. Why would God feel a need to do that? |
| The Mosaic Law was to mark Israel as a people distinct from the rest of the nations (Lev. 20:26). Israel was to be different, set apart and sanctified from the world and to the LORD. We see this function in the various “ceremonial” aspects of the law such as dietary and clothing restrictions. | The prooftext does not prove that God
gave the law to "distingish" Israel from other nations (whatever that
means).
"Dietary" restrictions did not "distinguish" Israel from other nations, because the distinction between "clean" and "unclean" animals was known in Noah's day, before there was any distinction between Israel and "gentiles," and were thus binding on the entire human race. The Bible itself does not say that "clothing restrictions" were intended to "distinguish" Israel from anyone else. Israel was intended to be distinct by virtue of the fact that, for example, Israel did not sacrifice children in the fire to Moloch. But that was because God did not want Israel to kill babies, not because God had some reason to "distinguish" Israel from other nations, as though national identities were more important than justice, righteousness, and holiness. |
Reason 2: to restrain |
|
| The Mosaic Law was to restrain evil at least to some degree. Martin Luther once wrote, “As a wild beast is tied to keep it from running amuck, so the Law bridles mad and furious man to keep him from running wild.” The Mosaic Law functions like a speed limit. Though a posted sign does not typically keep man from speeding, it does restrain speeding to some degree. Most will drive 45 or 50 in a 40 mph zone, but few will burn through at 95 out of fear of the penalty of the law. | What does this sentence mean:
"The Mosaic Law was to restrain evil at least to some degree." What
evidence is there that this was either an intention of God, or an effect of the
Law? Paul says that the law actually encourages sin.
God's Law was not intended to restrain sin "at least to some degree." It clearly prohibits all sin. Totally, not "to some degree." |
Reason 3: to diagnosis |
I think this should be "to diagnose" |
| The Mosaic Law was to diagnose sin and reveal transgression. This is the reason which receives the most explicit biblical treatment in passages such as Romans 3:20, 5:20 and 7:7 and Galatians 3:19. In this sense, the law is a mirror in which we see our filthiness. We read of gaining life by perfect obedience (Lev. 18:5) but find ourselves unable and thus cursed (Deut. 27:26). | But again, what does it mean for the law to "diagnose?" This is a human metaphor, not a Biblical expression. I get the feeling that the argument is being built that the Law was given for lots of reasons, but certainly not to be obeyed. |
| God awakens us through the law and leads us
to acknowledge our desperate condition.
It was added in order that we might realize that God is right to condemn us all, and to give our minds no rest from anxious and tortuous thoughts, in order that our despair might lead us to find hope in his promise. John Calvin |
|
| The law is like an MRI scan that reveals our cancer but provides no cure. We respond to this revelation of disease and depravity in one of three ways: by trying harder and, thus, only compounding our condemnation, by giving up in despair or by responding in desperation and hoping completely in God’s merciful and gracious promises rather than our own works. In this sense, the law is, as Martin Luther declared, “an usher to lead the way to grace.” | The Bible says cancer is caused by disobeying God's Law. The cure for cursing is the blessings of obedience to God's Law. If the Law was not given as a pattern for us to obey, why would a "diagnosis" of sin (transgression of the law, 1 John 3:4) bother us in any way? |
| The Mosaic covenant was good but not without fault (Heb. 8:7). It was subjected to imperfection by God Himself so that we might run only to the perfection provided in Christ. | God's Law-Word is perfect (Psalm
19:7; James 1:25). What was not perfect was God's People. The word
"covenant" does not appear in the prooftext. Read the next verse after
the one cited:
What changed was not God's Law, but God's people, who would have God's Law written on their hearts and would actually be obedient, rather than faithless and apostate like Israel.
God's Law was not "subjected to imperfection." What was imperfect was the Levitical priesthood, as it was inferior to Christ's Melchizedek priesthood. |
Freedom From the Law |
Oh goody! Freedom from work, freedom to steal, freedom to commit adultery! Hoo-ray! |
| To begin formulating an understanding of Christian responsibility toward the Mosaic covenant, let’s look at how apostolic authors spoke about a few explicit elements of Old Testament law and life. Though more examples could be offered, we will simply consider those that receive the most explicit treatment in the New Testament. | |
Circumcision |
|
| Circumcision was established prior to the Mosaic covenant (Gen. 17:1-27) but was particularly marked as a representative sign of that covenant (Lev. 12:3). So inherently central was the rite of circumcision to the Mosaic Law, the first early church conflict erupted over the rite. Circumcision further dominated a large portion of Pauline theology as will be discussed below. | The Law given to Moses hardly ever
mentions circumcision. Out of 117 chapters from Sinai to Joshua, circumcision is
found in only 3 verses, and two of them are not literal:
It was the Pharisees who chose to emphasize circumcision over laws against adultery and stealing from widows. |
| Put simply, circumcision was no peripheral or hypothetical discussion in the early church. Historically and biblically, to be a Jew necessitated circumcision according to the law. What then were early Christians to do? | It is peripheral in the Bible, but was central in the minds of Pharisees, for whom outward symbolic rituals were more important than heartfelt justice. |
| This very question prompted the first church council as the apostles and other faithful fathers gathered in Jerusalem in response to the claim of some teachers that “unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1). Reflecting upon God’s grace to the Gentiles in light of the gospel, the apostles determined that circumcision was no longer binding upon the people of God. This represented a watershed moment in God’s redemptive movement. | |
| Paul, a representative at that first council, would write: | |
| Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept
circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man
who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are
severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away
from grace. Galatians 5:2–4
For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. Galatians 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love. Galatians 5:6 |
Don't forget this verse:
|
| For the apostle, inspired by the same Spirit who spoke at Sinai, circumcision was no longer essential for the people of God. Instead, it was a physical sign pointing to and shadowing a spiritual reality – circumcision of the heart (Rom. 2:28-29; Col. 2:11-12). Physical circumcision was thus no longer universally binding upon God’s people. Rather, Paul’s principle in regards to circumcision became one of love and ministry. | This is exactly what the Old
Testament Law commanded: circumcision of the heart.
This does not mean it is now OK to have sex with animals because "we're not under law." |
| Let’s see how this principle played out in the lives of Timothy and Titus. Both were missionary companions of Paul. Both were uncircumcised when they received the gospel. Subsequent to conversion, Timothy was circumcised by Paul, but Titus was not. Was this duplicitous or inconsistent? | |
| In Acts 16:3, Paul circumcises Timothy “because of the Jews.” As this follows directly on the heels of the Jerusalem Council in which circumcision was not prescribed as universally necessary, this is an important account. Did Paul compromise his own gospel by circumcising Timothy? | |
| Timothy was the son of a Jewish mother (Acts 16:1). As such, he would have been considered Jewish. As a Jew ministering among Jews, circumcision would be instrumental in regards to credibility because a Jewish audience would have immediately rejected an uncircumcised Jewish messenger. The principle of Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8-9 was being manifested. Paul was willing to carry out the demands of the law in order to win Jews from under the law. | |
| Titus, however, was not circumcised for his ministry (Gal. 2:3). Why not? Because Titus was a Gentile ministering primarily among Gentiles. What benefit would his circumcision have presented? Rather than benefiting the ministry, his circumcision would have set back the cause of the gospel by implying that circumcision was necessary for acceptance and adoption to sonship. | |
| In these two accounts, we see that circumcision is no longer universally mandated for God’s people. Paul was willing to compromise personal rights for the sake of the gospel, but he was not willing to compromise the gospel itself. | |
| The established principle is that circumcision is not inherently essential. What matters now is not the removal of flesh but the removal of a heart of stone, and that is only accomplished in the gospel. | The promises of the New Covenant are not just the removal of a heart of stone, but replacing stoney hearts with hearts filled with the Law of God. (Jeremiah, Ezekiel) |
Food Laws |
See our discussion of the dietary laws here. |
| Another major section of the Old Testament law involved a distinction between clean and unclean foods (Lev. 11:1-47). How does the New Testament apply such laws? | The New Testament commands us to
avoid "uncleanness." First century readers understood what that meant.
It includes not eating blood and non-Kosher meat (by "kosher" I don't
mean modern rabbinical traditions, but as the Torah commanded - not strangled.
The Gentiles were commanded to learn more at their nearest synagogue:
The New Testament says we are still to avoid uncleanness:
|
| Starting with Christ, we see that “he declared all foods clean” (Mark 7:19). This is a radical statement and efforts to limit its vast sweep fall short. For example, some have said that this verse simply teaches that Christ declared all foods to be clean which were already seen as clean. Surely this interpretation completely dismisses the text. Why would Mark take the time to parenthetically comment that all clean foods are to be considered clean? | This is not an accurate translation of Mark 7. The passage does not say that. |
| No, the gospel holds out far more drastic news than that clean things are clean. In Acts 10, we see further evidence of the sweeping implications of the gospel. In Peter’s vision, he is told to eat even though the food presented to him is unclean. The Lord’s response is clear: “What God has made clean, do not call common.” | Peter at first did not understand the
meaning of the dream in Acts
10. But later he did. Peter explained:
The great Protestant exegete, J.A. Alexander, comments on this verse: The Greek adjective ("unlawful") is used but twice in the New Testament, and in both instances by Peter. According to its etymology and classical usage, it denotes what is contrary to ancient custom or prescription (Gk: themis), rather than to positive enactment (Gk: nomos); and this agrees exactly with the case before us, where the prohibition does not rest upon the letter of the law, but either on its spirit, as interpreted in later times, or on some traditional addition to it. |
| This reality is not restricted to foods but indeed crumbles every law which separated clean from unclean. Walls were broken down and laws abolished as Christ reconciled even the Jew and Gentile in one body through the cross. | We are still to avoid uncleanness (see verses above). |
| For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. Ephesians 2:14–18 | Remember, the distinction between "clean" and "unclean" animals probably existed since the Garden of Eden, and certainly existed in Noah's day, before there was any distinction between Israel (Jews) and Gentiles. It was the Jews, not God, who emphasized (exaggerated) the difference between Jews and Gentiles. |
|
Notice the equation between "clean" and "unclean" (which predates the Mosaic Law) and "the letter of the Mosaic Law." Use of the phrase "the letter" almost always means "we don't have to study the Bible." It sometimes takes disciplined work to understand how to apply the Bible. Christians today are very undisciplined. |
|
Confirmed. "We don't have to study the Bible, we just let pagans in government tell us what to do." |
|
"We don't have to obey God; we can do whatever we want (and of course we'll pat ourselves on the back and say what "wise" and "good stewards we are)." |
|
"Don't let God's Law tell you what to do. Listen to your heart." |
| A love for others should provide some boundaries as we are called to lay down our rights and preferences for the sake of others (Rom. 14:1-23; 1 Cor. 8:1-10:33). | |
| Beyond these few gracious limitations, we are free to partake of whatever we want. May our eating and drinking only lead to thanksgiving and the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31; 1 Timothy 4:1-5). | "Gracious limitations": When God makes a limitation, it is "oppressive" and "burdensome." But if we make it up ourselves, it's a "gracious" limitation. |
Sabbath |
|
| Sabbath keeping was absolutely essential to the Mosaic covenant, and its transgression was punishable by death (Exod. 20:8-11; Exod 31:13-17). | "Absolutely essential." Like circumcision (not). |
| Especially considering that this command is derived from the Ten Commandments, we might expect Christ and the apostles to state an abiding imperative, but that is not what we see in the New Testament: | Let's look at the Fourth Commandment:
The argument of the article on the left is that this law is no longer a law. All the laws pertaining to the seventh day of rest, or the seventh year, or the over 100 times the word "sabbath" appears in the Scriptures are no longer moral obligations. All those laws are out, abrogated. annulled, set aside. What does the Theonomist say? Go back to the top of this page and read the summary of Theonomy. Note especially point #5:
The article at left is claiming that "further revelation" has "rescinded or modified" the Fourth Commandment. As a result, the article at left is claiming You no longer have to rest on the seventh day.We are free from that law, according to the article on the left. Though perhaps the reality of the article at left is: You no longer get to rest on the seventh day.Because James calls God's Law "the Law of Liberty." We'll look at that issue in a minute. But first let's look at the verses offered by the article on the left which allegedly abrogate the Fourth Commandment. |
| Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Colossians 2:16–17 | If this verse is referring to the
Fourth Commandment and saying we are no longer obligated to
rest in obedience to the Fourth Commandment, then according to
Theonomy, we are no longer obligated to obey the Fourth Commandment. So if
Paul Baumgartner does not want to rest on the seventh day, there's no reason why
Paul Baumgartner should not be a Theonomist.
But is that what Paul was actually telling the Colossians? Is Paul telling the Colossians not to rest on the seventh day? "Let no one pass judgment on you...." Who was passing judgment? What were they saying? There are two possible suspects. First the "judaizers." They were trying to get the Christians in Colossae to observe "festivals" and other days of ritual sacrifice. Theonomists agree that we are no longer to observe days of sacrificing, because Christ is the final sacrifice. "Meat and drink" likely refer to offerings, which even Theonomists agree pointed to Christ and can only be obeyed in Christ:
Many days of sacrifices under the Old Covenant were also declared to be "sabbaths." Since we don't need to perform those sacrifices, liturgies, or other rituals, we don't need to take a day off of work for them. But this is a different issue than resting from work on the seventh day, which is what the Fourth Commandment is about. Can you cite a verse in the Torah which commands anything on a "new moon?" It is well agreed by Bible scholars that Paul's letter to the Colossians also targets the Gnostics, who had their own "sabbaths." Not the same as the Biblical sabbaths. No one should judge us on any sacrificial offerings, festivals, and Babylonian gnostic sabbaths. Nothing here goes against the summary of Theonomy at the top of this page. None of it. |
| One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. Romans 14:5–6 | Paul Baumgartner's article raises
Romans 14 as argument against Theonomy. Is the Apostle Paul arguing against
Theonomy in Romans 14?
Here's how Romans 14 begins: |
| 1 Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. 2 For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. 4 Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand. | |
| There is nothing in the Law of God
which requires eating only vegetables. This is not an example of Paul setting
aside Theonomy.
"The one who eats" could possibly be referring to one who buys meat left over from idolatrous pagan sacrifices to false gods. Some Christians apparently believed that this meat had some supernatural power left over and should not be eaten. It is interesting to note that the article at left cites the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 (above). The decree of that Council was:
So is Paul contradicting the Jerusalem Council? That's an interesting question, but beyond the scope of this conversation on Theonomy. So now we can continue reading the verses Paul Baumgartner provided. |
|
| One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. Romans 14:5–6 | |
| Which "day" was being
esteemed? Some gnostic festival? A Jewish day of offerings and sacrifices? The
"days" being observed may have nothing whatsoever to do with God's
Biblical Sabbath. This is a matter for scholarly exegesis and historical research,
which Paul Baumgartner's article either has not done, or does not provide.
The principle of "Theonomy" is clear:
So why is Paul Baumgartner not a Theonomist? |
|
| According to Paul, the Sabbath was a shadow pointing to the substance set forth in Christ. Sabbath, as a sign, pointed back to the original creation (Gen. 2:1-3) and forward to the eternal rest we will one day fully find in Christ (Heb. 3:7-4:10). The explicit Sabbath regulations of the Mosaic covenant were never intended as an eternally binding law upon the people of God. | If all this is accurate, then it is
not a refutation of the principle of Theonomy. A Theonomist could say exactly the
same thing.
Of course, it is also possible that sabbath regulations that came from God were in fact "intended as an eternally binding law upon the people of God," but need to be distinguished from gnostic sabbaths or Jewish days of sacrifices. |
| So should Christians rest? Yes. Is it wise to have an established rhythm of rest? Yes. Are we bound to a particular day in which particular activities are prescribed or prohibited? No. | This is an astonishing paragraph.
The article labors to prove that we are no longer obligated to obey The Fourth Commandment, that the commanded day of rest was abrogated, annulled, and set aside. "You don't have to obey God's Law any more" the article chants. But now the article claims there is a moral obligation to rest. Where does this moral obligation come from? Imagine apostles writing letters to people who had lived their lives in a one-day-in-seven cycle of rest. A matter of deep cultural, religious, and social significance. If you were going to tell such people they don't have to have a day of rest any more, how would you communicate it to them? I don't see the Apostles making any effort to change such a deeply-ingrained custom. But if the pattern of resting on the seventh day had been repealed, and all Christians knew they were not to rest on the seventh day, Where in the New Testament are we commanded to observe a different day of rest? Where in the New Testament are we commanded to "have an established rhythm of rest?" Why is the author at left telling us to do these things? By what authority does the author of that article tell us these things? By what standard? Theonomists always worry about a man who says, "You don't have to obey God's Laws, you just have to obey MY laws, and go to MY church." Humanistic (man-invented) laws are always more oppressive than God's Laws. It seems as though the attitude of anti-Theonomists is "You can't tell me what to do," and "I'm going to do it my way." |
| Therefore, let us freely and joyfully pursue rest in the Lord by engaging in those things which stir our affections for Him and disengaging from that which does not. Sabbath is no burden but rather an opportunity and gift of God’s grace to us, orienting us to a future rest when our struggles with a cursed creation will forever cease and we will eternally repose in His presence and provision. | Reducing the command of a Sovereign
God to a Hallmark Card is an invitation to tyranny. When governments were more
Christian, they prohibited employers from working their employees seven days a
week. See
examples of those laws here. Not just the seventh day, but the Biblical
requirements of debt release in the seventh year were the basis for early American
law. We still have a vestige of those older requirements in the limitation on
declaring bankruptcy only once in seven years. A sabbath-oriented society is a
more debt-free society. As America became less Christian and more secular, those
laws were set aside. Rushdoony notes:
So why is Paul Baumgartner not a Theonomist? I suspect people who don't want to be Theonomists just don't want to do their homework. Instead of studying the Bible carefully to determine God's perfect Will for our lives, we'd rather just do it our own way, thoughtlessly, "spontaneously." |
The Law and the Work of Christ |
|
| To understand the demands of Mosaic Law on the Christian today, we must read through the lens of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The advent of Christ marks a decisive break with the Old Covenant and its commands, and unless we understand the complex beauty of the gospel, we will forever find ourselves enslaved to various regulations and rules. | The article says God's laws
"enslave" us. That's not what the Bible says.
It is man's laws that enslave us. To be under God's Law is to be set free in wide open space. |
| For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. Romans 10:4 | |
| Meditate on this truth for a second. The word translated “end” can also mean “goal,” and Paul probably intended both nuances. As Thomas Schreiner noted, “Christ is the goal to which the law points; and when the goal is reached, the law also comes to an end.” This idea is further supported in extended Pauline discourses such as 2 Corinthians 3:4-18 and Galatians 3:15-4:7. Consider the following sections: | The ritual sacrifice of a lamb
pointed to Christ, "the Lamb of God."
The laws against theft, rape, oppression, etc., did not "come to an end." Theonomists distinguish between the "moral laws" and the "ceremonial laws." |
| Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses’ face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end, will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory? For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory. Indeed, in this case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that surpasses it. For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory. 2 Corinthians 3:7-11 | Recall principle #6 of Theonomy above
Why isn't Paul Baumgartner a Theonomist? |
| Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. Galatians 3:23-26 | No Theonomist disagrees with this verse. |
| Christ is the end of the law, and those grafted into Christ through faith are no longer subject to its legal demands as an attempt to gain righteousness. Our righteousness comes not from works of the law but from faith in the Son of God who has loved us and given Himself for us. | As the article says above, The word translated “end” can also mean “goal.” Christ is the goal of the Law. Christ obeyed the Law perfectly. He commands us to obey it and teach it. Not as "an attempt to gain righteousness." (We discussed that ambiguous and misleading concept above.) We trust Christ to bring us forgiveness for violations of God's Law. That does not mean we stop trying to obey God -- by following His commandments and by rejecting human substitutes for Scripture. |
The Heart of the Law is Love |
|
| If Christ fulfilled the precepts of the law so that we are no longer bound to obedience, is anything permissible and proper? | Christ did not fulfill the precepts of the law so that we are no longer under any obligation to be holy, just, righteous, and to refrain from theft, murder, adultery |
| The answer is "no." As Christians, we are no longer bound to the Old Testament law but rather to a higher law of love. We see this primacy and rule of love in a number of texts: | It is an antinomian
myth that Christ substituted a "higher law of love" for His Father's
commandments.
Humanists in church and state discard God's Law and tyrannize others in the name of "love." |
| Galatians 5:13–14 | |
| Romans 13:8–10 | |
| Romans 12:9 | |
| 1 Corinthians 8:1 | |
| 1 Timothy 1:5 | |
| Colossians 3:14 | |
| When Christ is asked about the greatest commandment, He responds that a love for God and others should inform and influence every affection, attitude and action. Rather than a dilution of our responsibility, this actually deepens it. Consider the radical implications of these commands. | When Christ is asked about the greatest commandment, He quotes the Old Testament. |
| If you love God, you will not worship other gods. If you love God, you will not take His name in vain. If you love God, you will love others who are made in His image. If you love others, you will not murder them or commit adultery with or against them or covet their possessions or gossip or oppress or objectify or lie to them. If you love others, you will serve them and lay down your life for them. | This is exactly what Theonomists say. This is what Romans 13:8-10 says above. If you want to "love" your neighbor, obey God's Law with respect to your neighbor. Do what God says to do for you neighbor. |
| Christ’s death and resurrection and the consequent abrogation of the law do not diminish our responsibilities but, instead, infuse them with an original intent buried beneath the letter of the law. Love is the rule, and where certain attitudes, actions and affections might remain ambiguous, the Bible occasionally clarifies the boundaries of love for us. | Christ says
Why do people like the author at left refuse to obey God? Why would they rather obey themselves? |
| As an example, when speaking to the issue of homosexuality, the most biblically gospel-centered approach is not to begin with Leviticus, for skeptics will instantly assert an inconsistent failure to additionally prohibit bacon and haircuts. A better approach is to connect this issue to the biblical call, demands and contours of love and the purpose and intent of sexuality to orient us toward the gospel. From there we can further comment on the explicit biblical (both New Testament and Old Testament) testimony against homosexuality. |
Why should we not appeal to the sovereign authority of the Creator? Revelation 6:16 God's wrath awaits those who repudiate His Commandments. |
The Law and Prophets Would Not Pass Away |
|
| If the law is no longer binding, then why did Christ say that it would never pass away? | |
| Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:17–20 | |
| The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone forces his way into it. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void. Luke 16:16–17 | |
| To answer this question, we must reflect upon the work of Christ. Christ did not merely set aside the law. He fulfilled the law perfectly. He did not come to do away with the law but to fulfill it. | This is theological double-talk. Are Christians morally obligated to obey the Scriptures or not? |
| As one who was born under the law (Gal. 4:4), circumcised according to the law (Luke 2:21) and presented to the Father as the firstborn according to the law (Luke 2:22-24), Jesus lived obediently to its demands in full. He fully fulfilled the law. Christ consistently violated Pharisaical interpretation of the law by associating with tax collectors and sinners (Matt. 9:1-38; Luke 7:1-37,15:1-47), working miracles on the Sabbath (Matt. 12:1-50; Mark 3:1-35; Luke 13:1-14:35) and failing to ceremonially wash before eating (Matt. 15:1-39; Mark 7:1-37; Luke 11:1-54). However, such actions were not transgressions of the law itself but rather intentional disregard for traditional extensions of the law. |
Pharisaical mis-interpretation of the law They were not "extensions" of God's Law, they were evasions of it. |
| By living in perfect obedience to the true intent of the law, Christ fulfilled it ultimately and finally. In His death and resurrection, He thus accomplished the demands of the law so that we are no longer under its curse (Gal. 3:10-14), guardianship (Gal. 3:25) and bondage (Gal. 4:1-7). | |
| The Mosaic Law was not intended as a universal and eternal reflection of the will of God. It was intended for a particular time, place and people. In Christ, it is no longer binding. Abel, Noah, Abraham and many others were declared righteous before the law. Moses, Joshua, David, the prophets and many others born under the law were declared righteous not through obedience to the law but through faith in the promises of God. Now, in Christ, we relish in the final revelation of the fulfillment of the promises in the coming of the object of the faith which alone justifies. | If a particular law was intended only
for a particular time and place, then Theonomy says that law is not intended for
our time and place. This should be obvious. See note 26 of the Theonomy summary above.
"Before the Law" is an ambiguous and unscholarly phrase. Abraham was a Theonomist:
Being "declared righteous" is "justification." That is a distinct and separate issue from the question of "sanctification." Christ secured our right-standing before God, but we are still required to "sanctify" or lives by separating ourselves from uncleanness and becoming increasingly holy according to the standard of God's Law. |
Interpreting and Applying the Law |
|
| Even though the Old Testament law is not literally binding upon believers, we see principles and patterns and moral norms that still apply to us today since the Old Testament is the word of God. Thomas Schreiner | This is gobbledy-gook.
A "moral norm" is a law. It is a lawful, binding obligation. |
| What then are Christians to do with the law? Though we are no longer enslaved to its custody (Gal. 3:1-4:31), we shouldn’t dismiss or ignore it. | It is disturbing that the article continues to speak of God's Law as "enslaving" when the Bible says His commandments are not burdensome. It is man's law which is enslaving. |
| Many have traditionally pointed to distinctions between civil, ceremonial and moral elements of the law and posited that the former two were abrogated, while the latter is binding. Though there is perhaps some value in such distinction, it is somewhat arbitrary and does not find solid biblical support. For example, are Sabbath regulations moral, civil or ceremonial? I think a better option remains than attempting to apply the three-fold dimensions theory. | Not all Theonomists agree with this "three-fold distinction." Read more. |
| As Christians reading the Old Testament, rather than simply applying the literal content of the law (or certain aspects of the law) or dismissing it entirely, we should instead seek a better approach consisting of a few steps: | When it comes to God's Law, Theonomists certainly don't advocate "dismissing it entirely," nor do they advocate "simply [mindlessly, thoughtlessly]" applying the "literal" content of the law (where "literal" usually means "woodenly, mindlessly, and thoughtlessly'). |
| 1. By diligent study of the text and context, interpret the original intent of the law to the original audience to whom it was directed. | No Theonomist would disagree with this. |
| 2., Determine the various substantial (not merely superficial) differences between the original audience and modern audience. | No Theonomist would disagree with this. |
| 3. Determine the underlying universal principle from the prescription or prohibition. | No Theonomist would disagree with this. |
| 4. Filter this principle through the progressive revelation of the gospel and New Testament clarity. | No Theonomist would disagree with this. |
| 5. Apply the modified universal principle to life today. | No Theonomist would disagree with
this.
This is nothing other than the responsible practice of Theonomy. So why isn't Paul Baumgartner a Theonomist? |
| Let us apply this method to a particular law as an example. Speaking of the other nations surrounding Israel, the Lord commanded: “You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons” (Deut. 7:3). | |
| Some have wrongly applied this prohibition directly and literally from the text. The result is a restriction of interracial marriage. However, this is not how we are to read the Old Testament law today. | No reputable Theonomist believes that the Bible forbids a Caucasian woman from marrying an Asian man. Or anything like that. A "restriction of interracial marriage" is NOT based on "directly and literally" applying the Bible. The concern of the Bible is with faith, not race. |
| Applying the principles above, we would see that Israel was called to be set apart or sanctified both from the surrounding nations and to God (see the “distinguishing” purpose of the law expounded above). Many of the laws which the Lord prescribed were intended to enforce this fundamental distinction between Israel and “the nations.” The nation of Israel represented “God’s chosen people” and was not be diluted or corrupted through intermarriage. | The difference between Israel and the other nations was faith, not skin color. God separated Israel by His Law, not by their skin color. |
| Though God has not completely forgotten or neglected the ethnic nation of Israel entirely, the New Testament infuses both the concepts of a “chosen people” and of sanctification with new and greater meanings. | Ethnicity doesn't matter to God.
If you have not been adopted into the family of God, then your father is the devil, and those ethnic roots will not help you:
The highlighted words are synonyms for God's Law. |
| Who are the chosen people? The chosen people are those of faith (Rom. 9:6-12; Gal. 3:23-4:7; 1 Peter 2:9-10), whether they are physically descended from Israel or not. What is sanctification? In the Old Testament, there was emphasis on physical separation. Thus, we see the consistent theme of homogeneity (don’t mix fibers in clothing, don’t till the field with mixed breeds, etc.). Jews and Gentiles were quite clearly distinguished as Jews were “set apart” from the nations. God’s people are still “set apart,” but that distinction is no longer defined by laws detailing physical separation but rather spiritual sanctification.2 | There are over 23,000 verses in the Old Testament. How many of those verses constitute "an emphasis on physical separation?" Few, if any. If there is even one verse on physical separation, it only echoes other verses that are concerned with spiritual and ethical separation. The article seems to be saying that in the Old Testament, faithful believers were not concerned with separating from the immorality and false religions of the pagan nations around Israel, but only with not mixing fibers. Now, the article seems to say, we are not as silly as Abraham and Moses, and we don't care about hybrid seeds, "but rather spiritual sanctification." False antithesis. |
| In light of these truths, what principle should we derive from Deuteronomy 7:1-4 and related texts? Filtering this question through a passage such as 2 Corinthians 6:14-18, we see that the original Mosaic restriction is no longer to be applied racially or ethnically but rather spiritually. God does not now prohibit interracial marriage. He prohibits marriage between believers and unbelievers. | God never prohibited Moses from marrying an Ethiopian woman (Numbers 12). God never prohibited Joseph from marrying an Egyptian (Genesis 41:45). The issue is faith, not ethnicity. |
| Using this system, we should be able to affirm the abiding validity of the Old Testament without woodenly and literally applying it as if living under the former covenant. | "Abiding validity of the Old Testament" is a Theonomic slogan. "Woodenly and literally" is not. Is this article guilty of slander or ignorance? |
Conclusion |
|
| So should Christians obey the Old Testament law? An answer to that question is extremely complex depending on how we define our terms and nuance our answers. | Agreed. |
| In general, we can say that Christians are free from the demands of the law, not in such a way as to imply that there are no longer certain moral boundaries and explicit obligations which are in some sense even more demanding than the letter of the Old Testament. | Gobbledy-gook. Christians are not free from the real, actual demands of God's Law. |
| Christ has freed us from the Mosaic Law but has given us a new law, a law of love founded upon a gracious gospel beckoning for our entire lives. | Did Christ free us from the law which
Abraham, centuries before Moses, obeyed?
|
| In Christ we are no longer under the law as slaves, but are under grace as sons – sons who are indwelt and empowered by the Spirit. In Christ we respond not to demands of the law but to the promises of the gospel. | More Gobbledy-gook. Faithful,
obedient sons obey the commands of the Father.
If you don't like the word "demands of the law," then speak of the peaceful, healthy, rewarding, path of blessing which God's Law sets before us. Like the Bible does. |
| A rigid matter was the law, demanding brick, denying straw, But when with gospel tongue it sings, it bids me fly and gives me wings Ralph Erskine (1685-1752) |
As we have seen, the prophets (Jeremiah, Ezekiel) said the Law (Torah) of God would be written on the hearts of New Covenant believers, who would be powerfully regenerated by the Spirit of God to obey, carry out, and teach God's Law (Matthew 5:17-20). |
| © 2012 The Village Church. All rights reserved. | |
Recommended Resources |
|
| 40 Questions about Christians and Biblical Law by Thomas Schreiner | |
Footnotes |
|
| 1 The Pentateuch is the first five books of the Bible. The name comes from the Greek words penta (five) and teuchos (scrolls). | |
| 2 For more on this subject, consider the contrasted uses of the phrase, “You shall be holy,” in the Old Testament and the New. As an example, in Leviticus 11:44, the phrase is used in relation to food laws whereas in 1 Peter 2:15, the context is spiritual and not physical separation. | The concern in the Old Testament was with spiritual, moral, ethical, and religious separation. Perhaps certain laws only symbolized this spiritual separation, and had no other purpose (health, etc.). There is nothing in the New Testament that says we should no longer physically symbolize the spiritual separation which was commanded in the Old Testament. There is nothing in the New Testament that says laws that protect our health should not be obeyed. |
|
Paul Baumgartner So, very interesting that not a jot or tittle disappears from the law, but the whole covenant including the Old Testament Law was replaced with the New Covenant. |
There is nothing in the Law or the Prophets or the New Testament that says "the whole covenant including the Old Testament Law was replaced with the New Covenant." The Prophets said the Law would be written on the hearts of New Covenant believers, and they would do and teach those laws. (Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Matthew 5:17-20) |
| Theonomy is an old heresy that keeps popping up because people like to use its subjugation methods to put other people in their subject list. | Read the summary of Theonomy at the top of this
page and identify each and every point of the summary which is a
"heresy."
Please cite one of the "subjugation methods" in the Bible. Jesus said His followers are not to subjugate people (Mark 10:42-45). I am proud to be a Theonomic Non-Archist. |
| It has been repeatedly declared a heresy by legitimate groups and FB pages like "Theonomy is Wrong" are configured the way they are because people have to keep proving the same Theonimists wrong all over again and again. http://www.thevillagechurch.net/.../christian.../ |
|
|
Paul Baumgartner Subjugation method: "You are wrong. Trust me to tell you what is right and wrong." |
Nowhere in God's Law is any human being commanded or authorized to say, "Trust me to tell you what is right and wrong." Only God has the right to tell us what is right and wrong. |
|
Paul Baumgartner Theonomists will use fallacies or false arguments rather than true doctrine gleaned from the meaning of scripture in context of the passage and culture. |
|
|
1) Equating moral law or moral truth with Mosaic Law. Remember, the definition of what they believe is that Mosaic Law is what they believe should be made into civil law. As shown in Romans 2, anyone can know moral truth apart from the Mosaic law. gentiles can make civil laws from moral truth that they find apart from the Mosaic law. |
You mean God approves of this? If gentiles make civil laws commanding death to Jews, death to the unborn, homosexual "marriage," compulsory atheist schools, God is OK with that? |
|
2) Attributing Mosaic Law to God’s revelation to Adam, Noah, or Abraham. What God gives to each of these is different. they will try to get you to see some similarities and then make you think that they are all the same thing. This is trying to connect the dots and then trying to read meaning that you get from your own thoughts and put them into scripture. |
I think the evidence is strong that God does not change His nature or character, and His Laws reflect His unchanging character. The evidence that Adam, Noah, and Abraham knew the same Law that Moses recorded is found here. Show me evidence that God's Law changes, such that Abraham's Torah was substantially different from the Torah of Moses. (We all recognize that the Levitical priesthood had not been revealed before Sinai, but priesthood had (Melchizedek) and the need for substitutionary atoning offerings was known by Noah and Cain and Abel. |
|
3) Circular arguments. They will go back to a previous argument that they had and deny that you gave them an answer or say that they cannot find your answer. Just remind them that they are arguing in a circle. |
Who is "they?" Deal with me. |
|
4) Deleting your previous statements on previous posts. Just start ignoring them if they do this. |
Who is "them?" Deal with me. |
|
5) Inducing their own thoughts to “complete the dots” into similarities between God’s different revelations – Mosaic / Adamic / Abrahamic. |
Sounds like the same argument in #2. |
|
6) Equating conscience with Mosaic law. |
The word "conscience" comes from two
Latin words, con, "with," and science,
"knowledge." The "conscience" has knowledge with God.
The conscience knows what God knows to be good or evil. The Mosaic Law is God's
Law. There is therefore an overlap between God's Law and the Mosaic Law.
The conscience does not know God's path to restoration after sin. So the conscience did not know (intuitively) the laws of offering and sacrifice in ancient Israel (though everyone probably heard them), and similarly the conscience does not know that Jesus is the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world (unless the conscience hears the preaching of the Gospel). |
|
7) Saying that because a part of Mosaic Law was there, the rest must have been. |
Why is this wrong? See this page for evidence, then provide similar kinds of evidence for your own position. |
|
8) Double or triple teaming you. Just don't let them busy you too much. Excuse yourself from the conversation and come back later. |
I gather that this is some kind of anti-theonomy debate book you've posted |
|
9) Note that God does not command Adam to observe the Sabbath. Theonomists will say that he did. It is true that the day of rest is used as a justification for the Sabbath in Genesis 2, but nowhere does it say that this observance was given to Adam. |
Nowhere does it say that God revealed to Adam that murder was a sin. Apparently Cain and everyone who would have killed him were good guessers. Was Adam so stupid that he could see that God was hallowing the seventh day and resting, but decided not to hallow it as well, and rest as well? "When in Rome, do like the Romans." |
|
10) Also another fallacy argument – asking you to disprove their idea that the Mosaic Law was given to Adam or Abraham. You do not have to disprove them. They have to prove their idea, and you really cannot prove it from the Bible. |
Proven here. |
|
11) You might get some irrelevant seeming posts about an assassin in the Bible named "Ehud," or some other non-tolerant passage talking about killing people that do not conform. These are veiled threats. Just report these. |
Good grief. |
|
1 Timothy 4:1-6 says that false prophets will order people to abstain from certain foods. This is certainly one thing that Theonomists do. |
Not all Theonomists do. But if that's the Biblical thing to do, they certainly should. |
|
"The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer." |
The question is, did God create cockroaches to be eaten? |
|
Paul Baumgartner So Kevin, please explain why you are not circumcised? Definition of Theonomy: "Theonomy is the idea that Mosaic law with its punishments should be observed by modern societies for their civil law." |
From the summary of Theonomy above:
|
|
Paul Baumgartner So... you believe you can just pick and choose which Old Testament Laws you want to obey. |
No Theonomist would say that. I didn't say that. Why do you have to be so prejudicial and derogatory? That is not very loving (1 Cor 13:5-7). Theonomists believe that the only way to obey the commands regarding the shedding of blood is to look to the blood of Christ. |
| 1 Timothy 4 was written in the context that it was after Acts 15 & Peter's vision that all 4 footed animals were deemed clean, which would certainly include pigs. Again, the definition of Theonomy is the full implementation of Mosaic Law into civil society. I know that is where you are going, so you are Not going to fool me. |
Peter's vision was about people, not food. http://VFTonline.org/VFTINC/theonomy/foodlaws.htm#Acts10 The New Testament commands us to avoid "uncleanness." First century readers understood what that meant. It includes not eating blood and non-Kosher meat (by "kosher" I don't mean rabbinical, but as the Torah commanded - not strangled (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25)
The Gentiles were commanded to learn more at their nearest synagogue:
The New Testament commands us to avoid "uncleanness."
|
|
Paul Baumgartner Kevin, Instead of redefining Theonomy, why don't you just find a new label for your new beliefs? It won't be labeled a heresy, at least not for a while. |
"Heresy" should not be a
word to throw around flippantly.
I'm not redefining Theonomy. I reject your own self-created definition of "theonomy" as " just pick and choose which Old Testament Laws you want to obey" The *BIBLE* defines "God's Law" (Theonomy). Jesus said that Abraham would have instantly recognized that Jesus was the Lamb of God, and that no other blood could bring atonement (John 8:56). |
| Paul Baumgartner Theonomy has been historically defined as: "the idea, espoused by Christian Reconstructionists, that Mosaic law should be observed by modern societies." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theonomy You seem to be taking that a step in a different direction and just picking and choosing which ones Not to include like circumcision. |
Kevin Craig Name one Theonomist who says anyone is morally obligated to circumcise or get circumcised. Just one will be fine. Name one Theonomist who believes that if Abraham were alive today, he would circumcise anyone (John 8:56; Colossians 2:11). Just one name. You don't even have to provide a link. |
| Paul Baumgartner 1) You haven't proven that the Old Testament Law is still in effect. 2) Even if you proved that, then you would have to prove that circumcision is specifically exempted. Keep in mind that circumcision does not necessarily cause bleeding. |
(1) Old Testament = "the Scriptures" Nowhere did any New Testament writer say we are no longer obligated to obey "the Scriptures." Read them here: http://KevinCraig.us/scriptures.htm The operating assumption of the NT writers is that the Scriptures are the Word of God and ought to be obeyed, as every Word of God should be
If God's People were no longer obligated to obey "the law of Moses," wouldn't Paul have taken this opportunity to strengthen that controversial claim, rather than obligate believers to continue following God's Law? If this was Paul's big chance to straighten people out on the non-obligatory character of the law of Moses, he blew it big-time. Deuteronomy 4:40 Thou shalt keep therefore his statutes, and his commandments, which I command thee this day, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which the Lord thy God giveth thee, for ever. This is the thinking of the Apostle Paul - if we obey the Scriptures, we will be blessed and live long:
Doesn't this make believers think they are still obligated to follow God's Law? Wouldn't believers like Timothy -- who had been committing God's Law to their heart since childhood -- take this verse from the Apostle Paul to confirm the continuing obligation (and blessing) to obey God's Law? (2) Theonomists do not believe in continuing the ritual sheddings of blood commanded in the Old Testament. Theonomists agree that the laws commanding circumcision can only be obeyed through faith in Christ's blood and work. |
|
Paul Baumgartner Once again the Theonomist uses eisegesis (reading something into the text) to infer what I would say or believe about Genesis 9. |
I don't recall saying anything about your views on Genesis 9, but I'm happy to hear your views and discuss them. |
|
In Genesis 9 you have a covenant with Noah. This is not to be confused with the Covenant that he made with the Israelites, but the Theonomist reads that meaning into the text. As we saw in Romans 2, one does not need to have a covenant with God at all to know that murder is wrong. Just because God gave this one command to Adam or to Noah does not mean that all of the Covenant with Israel was also given to them at that time. |
It's up to you to decide how much
of the Law given to Moses had already been given to Abraham, Noah, and Adam. Go
ahead and state your views. Here's mine:
I would say the assumption should be that the only new thing revealed to Moses was the Levitical priesthood, which the Old Covenant itself said would eventually be replaced by the Melchizedek priesthood of Jesus the Messiah. |
|
All this shows that Theonomy is a thought made up in the minds of people that they try to read into the Bible in various places where it does not exist. |
I don't see how it "shows" that. |
|
Now let's take a look at that Reference in Matthew 5:19. Here, I'll quote |
|
| Matt. 5:17-20: "17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." | |
|
The Theonomist will make a point about "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law..." They infer from this that the Mosaic Law itself in immutable for all time. Now let's think about that. |
OK, I'm willing to "think about" what Jesus said. But I'm not willing to deny it. |
| The Mosaic Law is something that God created for a specific people, at a specific time, in a specific culture. Culture changes, people change. Laws will have to change because people and culture change. Now God made the galaxies. Are the galaxies immutable? Nothing is immutable except God himself. | You seem to be denying what Jesus said. Jesus isn't saying it was only for those guys but you all don't have to worry about it. You seem to be violating verse 19, which says faithful Christians will tell others to obey God's Law and the Prophets because Jesus did not come to abolish it. |
|
Let's look at the context here. Jesus is a Jew and he is speaking to Jews. So far, we have established that the Law of the Old Testament Law was only applied to the Jews. |
This proposition has by no means been established. It is, in fact false. |
| Are you a Gentile that is circumcised? Are you a Gentile that keeps all the ritual sacrifices? Are you a Gentile and keeping all of the Kosher regulations? All that is part of the Old Covenant Law? Why are you not keeping all of that? If you really believe in Theonomy, then you have some explaining to do. Are you truly a teacher of the law, or just pretending to teach it? Please explain that. | It would be a sin to shed blood in
a ritual sacrifice after Christ shed His blood. The sacrificing of a lamb in the
temple at Jerusalem was a prefigure of Christ the Lamb of God shedding His blood
on the Cross.
Do I really have to explain this? |
|
Now, let's look at what Jesus' whole point is in this passage. We find that in verse 20, "For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." Wow! So you candiligently keep all of the requirements of the Old Testament law as the Pharisees and especially teachers of the law did in that day and Not make it to heaven! You can be circumcised, eat only kosher foods, and keep all the sacrifices and laws and still Not make it to heaven! What were these diligent law-keepers missing? And what is the Law for if it cannot bring salvation? |
As we saw above,
the Pharisees did not "diligently keep" God's Law. They were not
"diligent law keepers." That's a myth being spread by anti-theonomists
who haven't studied the Bible adequately. The Pharisees were harshly criticized
and eventually destroyed
by Jesus for rebelling against God's Law and the Messiah.
Nobody tries to "make it to heaven" (justification) by diligently keeping God's Law. |
|
Aha! I see, he clarifies it further in the following verses: 21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell." |
|
|
and, |
|
|
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." |
|
|
So, the Law was insufficient in that it said, "Do not commit muder and do not commit adultery." But Jesus said God expects more, that is the principles that should have been learned by the Law, that is, also do not hate others, treat others respectfully, and do not lust. |
Are you seriously maintaining that
it was permissible under the Old Covenant to covet your neighbor's wife?
Unwarranted anger was also OK? See the verses here:
Anger in the Bible | Nave's Concordance |
|
1) So to infer that the Old testament covenant is expected out of Gentiles from this passage is reading something into it. A Gentile does not need to observe the Old Covenant Law and that does not take away from it at all. The Old Covenant Law is still there unchanged for the Jews. Furthermore, none of the Old testament Law or the fulfillment thereof will help anyone get to heaven, not even a Jew. |
The Bible says the Gentiles were
obligated to obey God's Law, and they were judged by God for not doing so. Read
more.
No Theonomist I know claims that the Law will "help anyone get to heaven." Although anyone who despises God's Law, refuses to repent of his violations of God's Law, and refuses to obey Jesus' command to be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect, is probably not going to heaven. Probably doesn't want to. |
|
2) It is really the matters of the heart that God wants us to serve and not the Law. So in this way, by defining what God really wants, Jesus fulfills the Law. Fulfillment means, "bring to completion or reality." Notice also that what Jesus says about the preservation of the Law: "not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." So until everything is accomplished, completed, or fulfilled... But wait, Jesus said he came to fulfill the law.. |
I think it is a serious error to
say that God recorded His Law in the Bible but doesn't want anyone to obey it,
but simply do whatever his own depraved heart wants to do. Read
more.
God's Law is Spiritual and was always intended to be obeyed from the heart. Proof. |
|
Paul Baumgartner Romans 2 |
|
|
The Theonomist will read meaning into Romans 2 and say it shows that the Mosaic Law applies to Gentiles. Romans 2 says very much the opposite of the idea that the law was given to the gentiles. Here is the text of Romans 2: |
The Mosaic Law has always applied to Gentiles. God's Law revealed before Moses was binding on the Gentiles. Proof. |
| "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance? 5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism.12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them. 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares." | |
|
First, it says, "God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth." it Does Not say that God's judgement is based on his Law. |
Thy Law is the truth. Notice that turning from "iniquities" (violations of God's Law) leads to "understanding Thy truth."
|
|
Verse twelve makes a separation between Jew and Gentile where the Law is concerned. "12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law." |
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses Because they did know God's Law. |
|
Verse 14 explicitly says that the Gentiles do not have the Law. "14 Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law." This verse also explicity says that the Gentiles do what is right by the law, not because they have the law, but "by nature." In other words, they are not required to obey the Law, but should know right from wrong "by Nature." |
They didn't have the law in the same way the Jews did. Israel was special. But the Gentiles have enough Law to convict them. It's God's Law, not anybody else's law, that renders the Gentiles guilty. |
|
Verse 15 talks about the requirements of the Law, not the law itself. "15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them." So it does not say that the Gentiiles in fact know the law. The Gentiles know the requirements of right through their "consciences." |
I'm not sure I see the significance of this line of argument. |
|
The text goes on to mention that the Gentiles do not have the written code and could do right without it. " So then, if those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code..." Therefore, the Gentile is not required to have the written code of the Law or to obey everything in it since he is not required to be circumcised. The Gentile is merely required to do what is right, and that is something that is apart from the Law, even though it is in the law. |
I'm not sure I see the significance of this line of argument. |
|
Therefore, Romans 2 does not speak about or necessitate Theonomy for Gentiles, but rather the text affirms that the Gentiles do not need the law. |
I suppose I could concede that in some sense Romans 2 is not echoing the teaching of other parts of the Scriptures, that prove the Gentiles are obligated to be Theonomic. Romans 16 doesn't really prove this either. The point? |
|
Paul Baumgartner Jesus' salvation is complete. Jesus fulfilled the law and the prophets. God gave us a new and better covenant through Jesus Christ, and this replaces the Mosaic Covenant of Law. |
The words might be true; but I doubt the meaning is. |
|
Hebrews 7:24 "but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.26 Such a high priest truly meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens." |
No Theonomist disagrees with this verse. |
|
Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." |
No Theonomist disagrees with this
verse.
Do you agree with the next verse:
|
|
Matthew 26:53 "Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?” 55 In that hour Jesus said to the crowd, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me. 56 But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples deserted him and fled." |
No Theonomist disagrees with this verse. |
|
Mark 14:48 “Am I leading a rebellion,” said Jesus, “that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? 49 Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled.” 50 Then everyone deserted him and fled." |
No Theonomist disagrees with any Bible verses. |
|
Luke 18:31 "Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, “We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. 32 He will be delivered over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him and spit on him;" |
What is the point? |
|
Luke 22:36 "He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’[a]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” |
|
|
Luke 24:44 "He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms. 45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures." |
|
|
John 19:28 "Later, knowing that everything had now been finished, and so that Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I am thirsty.” 29 A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips. 30 When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit." |
|
|
Romans 13:8 "Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." |
|
|
Matthew 26:27 "Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." |
|
|
2 Corinthians 3:6 "He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." |
|
|
2 Corinthians 3:13 "We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away. 14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts." |
|
|
Hebrews 7:22 "Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant." |
|
|
Hebrews 8:6 "But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises. 7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another." |
|
|
Hebrews 8:10 "This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people." |
|
|
Hebrews 8:13 "By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear." |
|
|
Hebrews 9:15 "For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant." |
|
|
Now in light of all these scriptures, for someone who claims that they believe in Jesus, or believes in the scriptures about Jesus, to advise that the Mosaic law must be implemented into civil law, so that people can live righteous lives, you have to deny the price that Jesus paid on the cross to establish the new covenant. You have to deny all these scriptures and deny that Jesus Christ is the mediator of this new covenant that he established. |
Nobody who believes that murder
should be prohibited by the Civil Government is thereby denying "the price
that Jesus paid on the Cross . . . ." Bad logic.
Jesus is the Mediator of the New Covenant. The New Covenant that the Scriptures said would have God's Torah written on our hearts ( Jeremiah, Ezekiel ); a Kingdom in which Christ's followers would do and teach every jot and tittle of God's Law in the way Abraham would obey and teach God's Law if eh were here.
|
|
Paul Baumgartner Why did God give us the Mosaic Law then, knowing it was not perfect? For examples: |
|
|
1 Corinthians 10 New International Version (NIV) |
|
|
Warnings From Israel’s History |
|
|
10 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness. |
|
|
6 Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did. 7 Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: “The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.”[a] 8 We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did—and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died. 9 We should not test Christ,[b] as some of them did—and were killed by snakes. 10 And do not grumble, as some of them did—and were killed by the destroying angel. |
|
|
11 These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come. 12 So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall! 13 No temptation[c] has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted[d] beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted,[e] he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it. |
It is the people who were
not perfect. It was the Levitical priesthood that needed to be replaced by the
Melchizedek priesthood
|
|
Paul Baumgartner The extensive use of prisons in the Old testament shows that there were punishments that were not a part of the Mosaic Law. This shows that there was a civil law as well as the Mosaic Law. |
Nobody denies that civil magistrates outside Israel had their own civil codes. But those nations were judged by God because they were tyrannical, unjust, oppressive, and idolatrous. Nearly all of the Prophets confronted gentile nations with their failure to implement God's standards of civil justice. More. |
|
Isaiah 22:3 |
|
|
Isaiah 24:22 |
|
|
Isaiah 42:7 |
|
|
Isaiah 42:22 |
|
|
Isaiah 51:14 |
|
|
Isaiah 61:1 |
|
|
Ezra 7:26 |
|
|
A Theonomist may say that the prisons mentioned here were because of an occupation force. When Isaiah was written, there was no occupation force. The Assyrians tried to occupy the country,but their forces were defeated by a wasting disease that God sent. The reference from Ezra was during the reconstruction period around 300 BC. The story of Ezra the Scribe takes us back about 23 centuries, to the time when the Jews had returned from the Babylonian exile, had rebuilt the Beth Hamikdosh, and had begun to live a free life on their own native soil. At this time there was no occupying force. The Persian king appointed Ezra as a high-ranking officer in the Land of Israel, with powers to appoint judges and officers of the law, and to levy monetary fines, impose banishment and even to impose the death penalty, if necessary. He was given authority over all of the occupants of the land at the time. |
Isaiah spoke of future events in
the present -- or even past -- tense. The Prophetic Perfect | Truth Or Tradition? No prisons are prescribed by God's Law. Prisons are unBiblical inventions of pagans. |
|
Paul Baumgartner The Theonomist may say: "Its not about creating a new theocracy, but its about implementing and submitting to the right one. Man no less implements a theocracy when rejecting God's Law but just a false a pagan one. |
Theocracy is an inescapable concept. The word means "God rules." Every society makes laws. These laws are based on the moral values of that society. The source of moral values is the god of that society. Every society is a theo-cracy. A self-proclaimed atheistic society is a theocracy where every man is his own god. |
|
However, no where in the New Testament does it say that it is up to Christians to implement a new theocracy in society or civil law. The Christian must just individually allow God to write His law on their own heart. |
First, there is no logical
connection between the two thoughts separated by the word "however."
The second thought does not contradict the first thought, as the word
"however" might imply.
The New Testament does not say to build x-ray machines. "The Christian must just individually allow God to show him whether a bone is broken." Radical individualism is not Christian. The Bible says we are a "Body." Members of the body work together. We pray for civil leader and hope they convert to Christianity, and when they submit to the King of kings, they should obey His Commandments. Just as the king in Israel was to govern by God's Law, so any civil authority should submit to God in His Word:
If not the Bible, which book should civil leaders follow -- Karl Marx? Adolph Hitler? Christians were being persecuted by the government in the first century. Why would the precious pages of the New Testament repeat what had already been revealed by God to kings? |
|
The lamb of God establishes his Kingdom in the Book of Revelation: |
|
11 Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders." Revelation 11:15 Revelation 12:10 |
The argument behind these verses is not clear. |
|
What is the kingdom of God currently defined as for the Christian after the death and resurrection Jesus Christ and before his return? |
|
|
There are no more Mosaic Festivities required: |
Every Theonomist agrees with this sentence. |
|
Romans 14:17: "For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit," |
|
|
Jesus is the only priest in the new covenant: |
Every Theonomist agrees with this sentence. |
|
Hebrews 7:11 "If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood—why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also. 13 He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. 15 And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16 one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is declared: “You are a priest forever,in the order of Melchizedek.” 18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. 20 And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, 21 but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him: “The Lord has swornand will not change his mind: ‘You are a priest forever.’”22 Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant.23 Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. 26 Such a high priest truly meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men in all their weakness; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever." |
|
|
With the new covenant, God writes his laws on the hearts of the believers: |
Ask Jeremiah what laws get written
on the hearts of New Covenant believers:
|
|
Hebrews 8:10 "This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people." |
How did the writer to the
Hebrews understand the Hebrew prophets?
|
|
Therefore, implementing the Kingdom of God in the New covenant does not involve implementing different rulers or rules in civil society. It involves letting God write his law in their hearts. It is not a civil theocracy, it is a personal one. |
Radical individualism, to the neglect of society and community, is not Christian. Read Augustine's City of God. |
|
Paul Baumgartner A Theonomist may say, "There is NO SUCH THING as a non-theocratic government. ALL governments are theocracies. A Christian theocracy means God's law is Supreme. A non-Christian theocracy merely places the laws of another god as supreme." |
True. |
|
First let's look at the definition of Theocracy: |
|
|
"A form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities." |
This is not THE definition of "theocracy," it is A definition of A theocracy. |
|
Look at the defined method of government in the United States: "constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition." |
|
|
Sorry, but you do not get to makeup your own government type definitions. |
Every single person who signed the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence would agree that America was a nation "under God." Guided by the "true religion," not a false religion. That is the definition of a Christian Theocracy. |
|
Just because you accuse that God is not in control of the people in our government does not make that accusation true. Neither does it change the types of government in use. Just because God is not in control of any of the people in government does that make it a theocracy controlled by Not God. Just because God is in control of all or most of the people in government does it mean that it is a theocracy with God in control. |
This paragraph is unclear. |
|
What was replaced with the New Covenant according to the Old Testament. |
|
|
A Theonomist may say, "The ONLY thing replaced at the cross were the blood sacrifice laws *contained in ordinances* that were added 430 years AFTER Abraham." |
|
|
First, lets see what was involved in the Old Covenant according to the Old Covenant: |
|
|
God makes a covenant with Noah that basically involves God's promise to spare the whole world from destruction by flooding. This also involves God's command for them to be fruitful and fill the earth, as well as accounting for the life of human beings. |
|
| Genesis 9:1 "Then God blessed Noah and his
sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth.
2 The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all
the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all
the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and
moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now
give you everything.
4 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.
8 Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: 9 “I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you 10 and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living creature on earth. 11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.” 12 "And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.” 17 So God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth.” |
|
|
God makes a covenant with Abraham. This involves promising a land to Abraham as well as promising him an heir, the promise to give him so many descendants that many nations would come from him, and the requirement of circumcision. (Read Genesis 15 to 17). |
|
|
In Exodus, the Mosaic covenant starts to appear. This covenant includes the 10 commandments written on stone tablets. |
|
| Exodus 16:34 - "As the Lord commanded Moses, Aaron put the manna with the tablets of the covenant law, so that it might be preserved." | |
|
The Mosaic covenant includes a Book of the Covenant with commands for the people to obey. |
|
| Exodus 24:6-8New International Version (NIV) | |
| 6 "Moses took half of the blood and put it
in bowls, and the other half he splashed against the altar. 7 Then he took the
Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, “We will do
everything the Lord has said; we will obey.”
8 Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.” |
|
|
The Mosaic covenant involved grain offerings: |
|
| Leviticus 2:13 "Season all your grain offerings with salt. Do not leave the salt of the covenant of your God out of your grain offerings; add salt to all your offerings." | |
|
The Mosaic covenant involved rewards for keeping Gods decrees and commands, as well as punishments for disobedience: |
So far, I'm not seeing an argument against Theonomy. |
| Leviticus 26 New International Version (NIV) | |
| Reward for Obedience | |
| “‘Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it. I am the Lord your God. | |
| 2 “‘Observe my Sabbaths and have reverence for my sanctuary. I am the Lord. | |
| 3 “‘If you follow my decrees and are careful to obey my commands, 4 I will send you rain in its season, and the ground will yield its crops and the trees their fruit. 5 Your threshing will continue until grape harvest and the grape harvest will continue until planting, and you will eat all the food you want and live in safety in your land. | |
| 6 “‘I will grant peace in the land, and you will lie down and no one will make you afraid. I will remove wild beasts from the land, and the sword will not pass through your country. 7 You will pursue your enemies, and they will fall by the sword before you. 8 Five of you will chase a hundred, and a hundred of you will chase ten thousand, and your enemies will fall by the sword before you. | |
| 9 “‘I will look on you with favor and make you fruitful and increase your numbers, and I will keep my covenant with you. 10 You will still be eating last year’s harvest when you will have to move it out to make room for the new. 11 I will put my dwelling place[a] among you, and I will not abhor you. 12 I will walk among you and be your God, and you will be my people. 13 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt so that you would no longer be slaves to the Egyptians; I broke the bars of your yoke and enabled you to walk with heads held high. | |
| Punishment for Disobedience | |
| 14 “‘But if you will not listen to me and carry out all these commands, 15 and if you reject my decrees and abhor my laws and fail to carry out all my commands and so violate my covenant, 16 then I will do this to you: I will bring on you sudden terror, wasting diseases and fever that will destroy your sight and sap your strength. You will plant seed in vain, because your enemies will eat it. 17 I will set my face against you so that you will be defeated by your enemies; those who hate you will rule over you, and you will flee even when no one is pursuing you. | |
| 18 “‘If after all this you will not listen to me, I will punish you for your sins seven times over. 19 I will break down your stubborn | |
| pride and make the sky above you like iron and the ground beneath you like bronze. 20 Your strength will be spent in vain, because your soil will not yield its crops, nor will the trees of your land yield their fruit. | |
| 21 “‘If you remain hostile toward me and refuse to listen to me, I will multiply your afflictions seven times over, as your sins deserve. | |
| 22 I will send wild animals against you, and they will rob you of your children, destroy your cattle and make you so few in number that your roads will be deserted. | |
| 23 “‘If in spite of these things you do not accept my correction but continue to be hostile toward me, 24 I myself will be hostile toward you and will afflict you for your sins seven times over. 25 And I will bring the sword on you to avenge the breaking of the covenant. When you withdraw into your cities, I will send a plague among you, and you will be given into enemy hands. 26 When I cut off your supply of bread, ten women will be able to bake your bread in one oven, and they will dole out the bread by weight. You will eat, but you will not be satisfied. | |
| 27 “‘If in spite of this you still do not listen to me but continue to be hostile toward me, 28 then in my anger I will be hostile toward you, and I myself will punish you for your sins seven times over. 29 You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters. | |
| 30 I will destroy your high places, cut down your incense altars and pile your dead bodies[b] on the lifeless forms of your idols, and I will abhor you. 31 I will turn your cities into ruins and lay waste your sanctuaries, and I will take no delight in the pleasing aroma of your offerings. 32 I myself will lay waste the land, so that your enemies who live there will be appalled. 33 I will scatter you among the nations and will draw out my sword and pursue you. Your land will be laid waste, and your cities will lie in ruins. 34 Then the land will enjoy its sabbath years all the time that it lies desolate and you are in the country of your enemies; then the land will rest and enjoy its Sabbaths. 35 All the time that it lies desolate, the land will have the rest it did not have during the Sabbaths you lived in it. | |
| 36 “‘As for those of you who are left, I will make their hearts so fearful in the lands of their enemies that the sound of a windblown leaf will put them to flight. They will run as though fleeing from the sword, and they will fall, even though no one is pursuing them. 37 They will stumble over one another as though fleeing from the sword, even though no one is pursuing them. So you will not be able to stand before your enemies. 38 You will perish among the nations; the land of your enemies will devour you. 39 Those of you who are left will waste away in the lands of their enemies because of their sins; also because of their ancestors’ sins they will waste away. | |
| 40 “‘But if they will confess their sins and the sins of their ancestors—their unfaithfulness and their hostility toward me, 41 which made me hostile toward them so that I sent them into the land of their enemies—then when their uncircumcised hearts are humbled and they pay for their sin, 42 I will remember my covenant with Jacob and my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land. 43 For the land will be deserted by them and will enjoy its Sabbaths while it lies desolate without them. They will pay for their sins because they rejected my laws and abhorred my decrees. 44 Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them or abhor them so as to destroy them completely, breaking my covenant with them. I am the Lord their God. 45 But for their sake I will remember the covenant with their ancestors whom I brought out of Egypt in the sight of the nations to be their God. I am the Lord.’” | |
| 46 These are the decrees, the laws and the regulations that the Lord established at Mount Sinai between himself and the Israelites through Moses. | |
| Notice in Leviticus 26, that the covenant can be broken by the Israelites. | |
|
The Mosaic Covenant involved god speaking to Moses from above the ark: |
|
| Numbers 7:89 "When Moses entered the tent of meeting to speak with the Lord, he heard the voice speaking to him from between the two cherubim above the atonement cover on the ark of the covenant law. In this way the Lord spoke to him." | |
|
It is specifically emphasized that this Mosaic covenant was not made with any ancestors, but with the people of Mosestime. |
|
| Deuteronomy 5:3 "It was not with our ancestors that the Lord made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today." | |
|
It included the laws given through Moses: |
|
| Deuteronomy 7:12 "If you pay attention to these laws and are careful to follow them, then the Lord your God will keep his covenant of love with you, as he swore to your ancestors." | |
|
It involved a priesthood: |
|
| Deuteronomy 10:8 "At that time the Lord set apart the tribe of Levi to carry the ark of the covenant of the Lord, to stand before the Lord to minister and to pronounce blessings in his name, as they still do today." | |
|
The breaking of the Mosaic covenant was foretold: |
|
| Deuteronomy 31:16 "And the Lord said to Moses: “You are going to rest with your ancestors, and these people will soon prostitute themselves to the foreign gods of the land they are entering. They will forsake me and break the covenant I made with them." | |
|
Solomon Broke the covenant, and the kingdom would be torn away from him: |
|
| 1 Kings 11:11 "So the Lord said to Solomon, “Since this is your attitude and you have not kept my covenant and my decrees, which I commanded you, I will most certainly hear the kingdom away from you and give it to one of your subordinates." | |
|
Israelites reject the Mosaic covenant: |
|
| 1 Kings 19:10 "He replied, “I have been very zealous for the Lord God Almighty. The Israelites have rejected your covenant, torn down your altars, and put your prophets to death with the sword. I am the only one left, and now they are trying to kill me too.” | |
|
A future covenant promised to those that repent involves a redeemer and God's words will always be on their lips: |
|
| Isaiah 59:20 “The Redeemer will come to Zion, | |
| to those in Jacob who repent of their sins,” | |
| declares the Lord. | |
| 21 “As for me, this is my covenant with them,” says the Lord. “My Spirit, who is on you, will not depart from you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will always be on your lips, on the lips of your children and on the lips of their descendants—from this time on and forever,” says the Lord." | |
|
A new covenant promised that will be unlike the old covenant. God's law will be in their minds and hearts. According to this, God's laws will Not be in books or civil law. |
|
|
This is a pro-Theonomy passage. |
|
Therefore, even according to the Old Testament, the way that God's laws would be written and kept would be different. They would be kept in the minds of people and written on their hearts. |
Still God's Laws. Not man's. |
|
What does the New testament say about the Old Covenant and New Covenant? Does the New Covenant mean the Mosaic Law is imperfect? |
|
|
2 Corinthians 3:14 "But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away." |
"Their minds." The People of Israel. |
|
Hebrews 8:6 "But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises." |
Read what Theonomists
actually say. Same Law, better promises. |
|
So, the New testament teaches that the Old covenant has been taken away in Christ and that Jesus is the mediator of a New Covenant which is superior and better than the old one. Now more about the New Covenant: |
|
|
Luke 22:20 "In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you." |
|
|
1 Corinthians 11:25 "In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” |
|
|
2 Corinthians 3:6 "He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." 2 Corinthians 3:7 "Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9 If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! 10 For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. 11 And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!" |
|
| Hebrews 8:1 "Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by a mere human being. | |
| 3 Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. 4 If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. 5 They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” 6 But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises. | |
7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that
first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8 But God found
fault with the people and said:
|
|
|
Hebrews 9:15 "For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant." |
|
|
Hebrews 12:24 "to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel." |
Theonomists agree with all of God's Bible verses. |
|
So, we find the following things about the New Covenant: |
|
| 1) It was established by Jesus at the Last Supper. | |
| 2) Christians are ministers of the New Covenant, "not of the letter, but of the Spirit." | |
| 3) The Old Covenant brought condemnation, but the New Covenant brings righteousness. | |
| 4) There was something wrong with the Old Covenant, which is why a new one had to be established. | |
| 5) The Old Covenant is obsolete, outdated and will soon disappear. Therefore, according to the New Testament, the Old Covenant, which contained the Mosaic Law, was not perfect. There was something wrong with it and a new Covenant had to be established. Jesus established the New Covenant based on his sacrifice on the cross. Christians do not minister a Covenant of the letter, but one of the Spirit. | Theonomists put it this
way:
|
|
Now, some may ask, how is it that the Old Covenant was not perfect, but Psalms 9:7 says that the law of the Lord is perfect? |
God's Law is a reflection of the character of God. It does not change. It was the same law under the Noahic covenant, the same law under the Abrahamic covenant, the same law under the Mosaic covenant, the same law under the Davidic covenant, the same law under the Exilic Covenant, the same law under the Restoration covenant, and the same law -- written on the hearts of believers -- in the New Covenant. Priests change and kings change under the different covenants, but God's moral character never changes. God always requires human beings to act in a a way that is consistent with God's perfect moral character. These requirements are God's Law. It never changes. |
|
|
|
This is a Psalm of King David. First of all, David was required to write a copy of the Book of the Law, so it is certain that he is talking about the Mosaic Law here. He is a Jew commanded to keep these commands above all other people in his country for that time. Yes, at that time and for this person, the law of the Lord is perfect. It is also possible that it is not perfect because it is also not for all times and it is not for all people. |
|
|
The Mosaic Law was imperfect because it could not provide righteousness: |
The animal sacrifices under the Levitical priesthood were inferior to the Lamb of God. Those sacrifices were pictures of restored fellowship between sinners and God. "Sin" is the transgression of God's Law (1 John 3:4). God's Law never changes. It reflects His perfect moral character. |
| Galatians 2:20-21New International Version (NIV) | |
| 20 "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” | |
|
The Mosaic Law was imperfect because it was not obeyed: |
No, people who are disobedient to God's law are imperfect. God's Law is perfect. |
| Acts 7:52 "Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him— 53 you who have received the law that was given through angels but have not obeyed it.” | God's Law is a perfect indictment of sinful people. |
|
The Mosaic law does not set us free from sin: |
The Law of God defines sin. Freedom from sin is obedience to God's Law. |
| Acts 13:38 “Therefore, my friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39 Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses." | Theonomists agree with all these
Bible verses.
Is there an argument against Theonomy on the horizon? |
|
Therefore, the Apostles established that Mosaic law was not intended for the Gentiles and decreed that we should not be required to keep all of the law of Moses: |
|
| Acts 15:1 "Certain people came down from
Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised,
according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought
Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas
were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see
the apostles and elders about this question. 3 The church sent them on their
way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the
Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. 4 When
they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and
elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.
5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.” 6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon[a] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
|
|
| The Council’s Letter to Gentile Believers | |
22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole
church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with
Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were
leaders among the believers. 23 With them they sent the following letter:
Farewell. 30 So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. 31 The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. 32 Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers. 33 After spending some time there, they were sent off by the believers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them. [34] 35 But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord.36 Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us go back and visit the believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing.” 37 Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, 38 but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. 39 They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, 40 but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the believers to the grace of the Lord. 41 He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches." |
|
|
Therefore, the Mosaic Law was perfect in that it had true standards for living for the people and time for which it was given. The Mosaic Law was imperfect because it was not complete. It did not make people righteous. It was not obeyed and could be broken. It could not set one free from sin. Jesus provided the New Covenant with his blood. Jesus writes God's law on our hearts and in our minds. In this way, we can be righteous. We have Jesus available to us constantly as an everlasting mediator with God. We have Jesus' commands which give us guiding principles for life. |
The fact that a law can be
violated is not the fault of the law, it's the fault of the violator. Sin is the transgression of the Law (1 John 3:4). To say that Jesus sets one free from sin is to say that Jesus sets one free from transgression of the Law, which is to say that Jesus makes us obedient Thonomists. |
|
How do you know what sin is unless you have the Law to tell you what it is? |
|
|
Certainly, the Mosaic Law tells us what sin is. So does current civil law. This does not mean that we should implement Mosaic Law as civil law. The following verse puts the Old Testament into perspective for us: |
The laws of Barack Obama ("current civil law") does not tell us what is sinful in God's eyes. Read the Summary of Theonomy at the top of this page. Obama should follow God's Law instead of making up his own. |
|
1 Corinthians 10:11 "These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come." |
|
|
The life of the Christian is not about focusing on what sin is and constantly thinking about that. If you are on a diet and you make a rule for your self not to eat any cake, ice cream or peanut butter on your diet, and you constantly think about your rule to make your diet work, what do you think you are going to think of? Cake, ice cream, and peanut butter? What do you think you are going to end up doing? You are going to eat cake, eat ice cream, and eat peanut butter. If you want to succeed at dieting, plan your diet around what you will eat to succeed. Plan on eating celery, green beans, and grapefruit. Think about what you plan. Guess what you are going to end up eating? You are going to eat celery, green beans and grapefruit. |
I'm looking for an argument against Theonomy. |
|
The Christian life is much like that. We don't concentrate on thinking about the sinful things so we can think about avoiding them. We think about the good things and fill our life with those things. The best summary of this can be found in Philippians 4:8 "Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things." The best explanation can be found in Romans 8. |
|
| "Therefore, there is now no condemnation
for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the
Spirit who gives life has set you[a] free from the law of sin and death. 3 For
what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh,[b] God
did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin
offering.[c] And so he condemned sin in the flesh, 4
in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who
do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
5 Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. 9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. 10 But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life[d] because of righteousness. 11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of[e] his Spirit who lives in you.12 Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. 13 For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live. 14 For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. 15 The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship.[f] And by him we cry, “Abba,[g] Father.” 16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. 17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.Present Suffering and Future Glory 18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that[h] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently. 26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. 27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who[i] have been called according to his purpose. 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. More Than Conquerors31 What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? 33 Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34 Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? 36 As it is written:
|
If we live according to the Spirit,
the righteous requirement of God's Law will be fully met in us. We will not
murder, lust, steal, lie, etc. If we live according to the flesh, the righteous requirement of God's commandments will not be met in us. We will exhibit the works of the flesh:
|
|
Paul Baumgartner Does the New Testament prescribe the same punishments as Mosaic Law? |
|
|
No, it does not. This is especially evident in 1 Corinthians 5: |
|
| "It is actually reported that there is
sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A
man is sleeping with his father’s wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you
rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who
has been doing this? 3 For my part, even though I am not physically present, I
am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have
already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been
doing this. 4 So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the
power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this man over to Satan for the
destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the
Lord.
6 Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? 7 Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you." |
1 Corinthians 5 is not addressed to
a civil magistrate. It is addressed to private (non-public) Christians who are
residents in the pagan Roman Empire. Members of the Church at Corinth did not
have power or authority to execute anyone for incest.
|
|
Here the prescription is just to not associate with someone that claims to be a Christian, but is an idolator sexually immoral. It does not say that you should kill them as the Mosaic law prescribed. So one may ask, what about people that committed murder, committed theft, or committed fraud? All the gentile nations had civil laws against such things. The New Covenant does not prescribe specific punishments for every wrongdoing, but leaves that up for the society in which the Christian resides. |
Paul says to turn him over to Satan
for the destruction of the flesh.
Nothing here proves that the Civil Magistrate is no longer required to execute homosexuals or those who commit incest. Nothing in this passage proves that it would be sinful (contrary to the New Covenant) for a government to execute people for incest or any other crime listed in the Scriptures. If executions by the government were outlawed by the New Covenant, that would have to be proven from another passage of Scripture. The New Covenant doesn't "leave it up to the society." Every society in the history of the human race has been obligated to conform to God's Righteous Standard. The New Covenant doesn't change that. |
.