I’ve been reading through the Old Testament of late, trying to get a better feel for the basis for Covenant theology. While doing this, though, I’ve come to notice how much detail God pays to his Law which he gives Israel and the emphasis he places on the fact that it is his perfect Law.
I decided to check out a few different perspectives on the continuity/applicability of the Law in our current time, and came upon a familiar name: Greg Bahnsen, and again I find myself agreeing with his stance on the topic.
Growing up in an Evangelical Baptist home and church, I had always assumed that, while the OT Law was good for the Israelites, it was somehow no longer applicable for today’s Christians. Upon reading some articles by Bahnsen and a few other theologians, however, I cannot see how anything but the opposite could be the case.
Bahnsen et al teach a position called “theonomy;” theos meaning “God” and nomy meaning “law” so that it is literally “God’s law.” The question which Rushdoony, a theonomist, famously asked — “by what standard should governmental law be determined?” — is answered by the theonomist by saying that the “general equity” of the civil Law should be legislated.
What is meant by the “general equity” of the Law, then? Quite simply it means that the principles of justice outlined in the civil law of the OT should be legislated by government. A classic example is the case of the OT requiring railings around roofs of houses. The principle which theonomists would advocate is that accidental injury and death should be properly avoided. The current day application would then be things such as fencing swimming pools, building codes, etc.
A few initial objections may be made. First, if we look to the punishments for crimes outlined in the OT civil law, we may be tempted to think that they are overly harsh. The simple response is to remind ourselves of the creator of the law: God. We can be assured that the punishment which he commands is perfectly just.
Second, we may object by pointing to Luke where we are told that the Gospel fulfills the Law. The answer is again quite simple: fulfill does not mean abrogate. Fulfillment of the Law means that those incapable of themselves fulfilling it (i.e., everyone) can find fulfillment in Christ. It does not remove the law. An argument ad absurdum could also be used here to say that if fulfilled means abrogated then Christians are not bound to any law.
Third, we may initially wonder if theonomists advocate the overthrow of government to be able to legislate these laws. As far as I know, no theonomist does advocate civil war, but they do say that we should try to work through government to make these laws a reality.
Fourth, we may object by saying that the OT law was given only to the Israelites or Christians; it is unfair to hold non-Christians or Gentiles to that law. This, however, is not the example given in the OT. God, numerous times, judges people or nations outside of the theocracy of Israel for not obeying his commandments. This is seen in the judgment of Sodom and Gommorrah (Gen. 18:20), and when God destroys the Canaanites for their lawlessness (Lev. 18:24-27).
I’ll close by asking that same question which Rushdoony asked: “by what standard?” If we do not establish laws by God’s perfect standard, then by what standard do we establish them? We must base our laws upon the general equity of OT civil law. I cannot see any other position to take biblically or logically.
Interesting points, with a few rebuttals from your less Covenant minded friend. You have not completely taken into account the portions of the law that refer to practices which the NT clearly says we need not follow, i.e. circumcision, animal sacrifices, etc. Now you may say that these were used only as a substitute for redemption until Christ came and died, but we both know that there was no actual saving power in those actions, only the faith that they put into those actions and into the God behind them is what saved them. So if those sacraments are done away with, where does the rest of the law go? Can we pick and choose which parts of the law are still applicable and still hold power? I think not.
Also, in response to your statement that Christians are still bound to the law. While it is true that the Scriptures tell us to respect human government authority (hence the hesitance you show to support civil war in an effort to restore OT law), the Scripture also tells us that “for ye are not under the law but under grace.” (Rom 6:15). This of course is followed up with the more famous verse “What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid!” The point here is that because of the salvation we have experienced and the love that God has chosen to show us, we obey his law – not Levitical, for the Levitical law only pointed forward to Christ and Christ has already come – but instead we follow the law He laid upon our hearts as well as the civil law of whatever nation we happen to reside in.
Concession: It is very true that for any legal system to succeed it must in some deep way be based off of much of the Levitical law that we see in the OT. However, remember Josh, that with Christ as our example we recall the instance of the woman caught in adultery. Were the Pharisees that wanted to stone her going against the Law in their judgement? No! In fact they were being completely fair. There was no misinterpretation of the Law here. No “Maybe that’s work on the Sabbath or maybe it isn’t.” It was pretty cut and dry that a woman in adultery was to be “Cut off”. However when God was there what did he do? When the Christ was there he instead forgave her because of the shame and repentance in her heart. That’s justice from a Christ-One for the post OT era, and that’s how we should view the Law.
Comment by Jordan Wood — January 13, 2006 @ 12:21 pm |
Here are some links that I believe will be interested
Comment by srhjytukyky — August 9, 2006 @ 5:09 am |