Theonomy - Is Moses The Answer?

By Darren R Middleton: Teaching Elder, Caringbah Presbyterian Church, NSW, Australia.

Webmaster of www.pressiechurch.org Australian Home of Covenant Theology

Introduction

A couple of hundred years ago it was legal to own a slave but illegal to have an abortion, today it is legal to have an abortion but illegal to own a slave. I guess it raises a very real question, is there an absolute law to which Christians can appeal as a counter to the relativism of our post modern, post Christian, pluralistic society?

 

To force the situation, let’s imagine that the Providence of God has swept you and your Christian party into office in what was a stunning electoral victory. Christians all over the nation rejoice, at last, a truly Christian government, ruling our land. So what will you do now? What does a Christian nation look like? Moreover, what would the laws of a truly Christian nation be?  For example, biblically speaking, homosexuality is sinful, but will it now be illegal? And if it is, what should be the punishment for the homosexual offender? And what about sexual relations outside of the covenant of marriage? All such relationships are deemed sinful in the Bible, but will they now be illegal? And if they are, what should be the punishment for the fornicator or adulterer?  These, for most of us, are complex situations that would be difficult to find a Christian consensus on, since our understanding of the Old Testament covenant and its relationship to New Testament believers is still to this day a vexed issue.

 

Theonomy –  A Twofold Division of God’s Law.*

Emerging from the lack of clarity and cohesion comes the voice of theonomy that declares with certainty the answer to the dilemma. The Theonomists believe they are on sure biblical ground when they argue that there is no other standard of justice apart from God’s law that can be applied to a nation that has the approval of God upon it. In other words, why suffer and tolerate the relativism of man made laws when we already have the divinely inspired law of the Old Testament? For the theonomist, the fundamental hermeneutical principle is that any civil law not clearly abrogated in the New Testament is to be assumed to be still binding as God’s law or at the very least the general equity thereof.  This is in direct contrast to the key dispensational hermeneutic that states that what is not clearly repeated is to be assumed to be no longer binding. It is also contrary to the confessional understanding of the Old Testament law, where only the moral law is considered binding on all Christians.

 

Traditionally in Reformed circles theologians have argued that the ceremonial aspects of the law are abrogated or fulfilled by the coming of Jesus Christ. Reformed exegetes have looked at how the New Testament handles specific cases of ceremonial law that have clearly been abrogated because they have been fulfilled, such as the unclean food laws (Mark 7:19, also Acts 10:19) and ceremonial and external regulations concerning the earthly sanctuary (9:1- 9:10; 10:1). By good and necessary consequence they apply this abrogation principle to the whole class of ceremonial laws. Theonomists agree with this, but where they part company is in relation to the ongoing validity of the civil (case) laws.

 

Theonomy argues that the civil laws are merely an outworking of the moral laws, and so rightly understood, civil laws are in fact part of the moral law. Consequently, the moral law and its sanctions (as laid out in Old Testament) are the only standard of law ordained by God and are binding on all. This of course is a departure of the confessional understanding of a threefold division of ceremonial (WCF19:3 - now abrogated) judicial (WCF 19:4 – now expired) and moral law (WCF19:5 – binding). 

 

This is defended by claiming that theologically there is a definitive unity of all judicial law with the moral law, since all the judicial laws are an outworking of one or more of the ten commands (moral law).  Hence, Theonomists argue that in a two fold division of the law we see God’s righteousness and justice displayed in the moral/civil law and God’s mercy is found in the ceremonial law. Obviously the ceremonial law was fulfilled in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, where shadow and type gave way to reality, however, the moral/judicial remains normative for the individual as well as the nation. It must be said that many Theonomist would want to say that they do not believe that the O.T Law in its exact sate is binding but rather the “general equity thereof” (WCF 19:4), none the less, the foundational commitment is that the judicial law of the O.T is still binding.

 

 

Four Arguments For Theonomy.

The foundation stone of Theonomy is the plausibility and strength of the argument identifying the moral and civil laws as one and the same class. Consequently, any argument used to support the position of the binding nature of the moral law, is in fact (according to Theonomists) an argument in favour of the civil law, since one is just the application and extension of the other.

 

As said previously, Reformed theologians have argued for the abolition of the class of ceremonial laws predicated on the abrogation of specific ceremonial laws in the New Testament. Consequently, Theonomists argue that the approval and citation of specific civil laws as authoritative (1 Cor 5:1; Mk 10:19; 1 Tim 5:18 etc) prove the ongoing validity and authority of the whole class of laws.

 

In addition to this, the theonomist argues that Jesus himself specifically said that he had come not to abolish the law, but rather, to confirm it (Matt 5:17). As a consequence, the expectation should be one of ongoing validity for all the law with the exception of the ceremonial which Jesus fulfilled through his priestly ministry.

 

And finally, if we reject the moral/civil law found in the Mosaic legislation by what other standard shall we govern, since we will be left groping aimlessly in the darkness of subjectivity and relativism.

A Response to Theonomic Arguments

Nowhere in Scripture is the Old Testament law divided into a moral/civil and ceremonial. For that matter, both the twofold and threefold division (heuristically helpful as they are) are not biblical distinctions. Furthermore, of the six hundred plus laws of the Old Testament, how do we decide what is ceremonial and what is judicial? The so-called moral law, is certainly definable, but to clearly define the boundaries of ceremonial and civil law is far more complex. It should be noted that Theonomists themselves have no universal or absolute criteria by which they can classify one or the other and so must rely on subjectivity when making such judgments. Furthermore, the strongest rationale for the expiration of the civil and ceremonial law comes from a redemptive historical reading of Scripture. Where we understand that the New Testament manifestation of the Kingdom of God (and his rule) is the Church, as opposed to the Old Testament manifestation of the Kingdom of God (and his rule), which was a nation. This redemptive historical shift alone is the obvious reason why the judicial laws that governed the nation Israel are now, in the words of the WCF, expired.

 

If then, the civil law has expired as the WCF teaches, how is it that the New Testament authors cite various civil laws in their arguments for how Christians should act? Then answer seems to be in how the New Testament authors use the civil laws, since (for example) Paul takes the civil law and then applies it to a non civil (judicial) situation. So the law on not muzzling an ox, which was designed to protect the welfare of animals, is applied not to a civil case, but to ecclesiastical situation of paying gospel workers (1 Tim 5:18). Certainly then, it seems instructive that the New Testament usage of the Old Testament judicial law is in a non judicial situation. This is the central issue concerning theonomy, if Theonomists can not offer a convincing argument that the WCF is wrong and that the judicial law should be understood as moral law and therefore binding, then whatever other arguments they may muster, their position is lost.

 

Theonomists use of Matt 5:17 as evidence in support of the ongoing validity of the judicial law is particularly weak on several fronts. First the exegetical argument that the Greek word ‘Pleroo’ should be translated “confirm” instead of “fulfilled” is certainly a weak one. Indeed, apart from Theonomists themselves, almost all other scholars maintain that “fulfilled” is the best rendering. Second, rightly understood the whole argument is quite superfluous, since Theonomists themselves acknowledge that some aspects of the O.T law (confirmed or fulfilled by Christ) are no longer binding. Thus although Christ did not come to abolish the law but rather to fulfill or confirm it, both sides agree that at least part of the Old Testament law is not longer binding. Consequently Matt 5:17 adds no weight to the theonomic position.

 

The last argument is a pragmatic one, that is, if we don’t have the Old Testament judicial laws as our standard, then we are left in a sea of subjectivity regarding laws for our nation. But this assumes that Israel was meant to be a standard for all nations and governments for all time. This is an unargued presupposition of Theonomy. And if the truth be known it is driven by eschatological imperatives, that is, Theonomists expect a golden age of gospel influence (postmillennalism) where they will govern nations and so ask the question by what standard shall we rule? Our response might be, if such a golden age occurs then by the “light of nature“ (WCF 1:6) and in the case of Christians magistrates by “good and necessary consequences deduced from Scripture” (WCF 1:6) which is exactly what has happened via common law in the western world.

 

So then, is the law of Moses binding on Christian magistrates today? Is the law of Moses the answer? The history & confession of the Church and I believe the witness of Scripture is a definitive,  “No.”

 

*The argument is drawn from from J. Ligon Duncan excellent overview of reconstructionism

NB: Westminster Confession of Faith - WCF

Home: Purpose:  Apologetics: Covenant Theology: Eschatology: Evangelism: Law and Gospel: Reformed Theology: Sacraments: Soteriology: Topical Issues: CPC Church: Downloads: Links