The Bounds of Love 2nd Ed

The Bounds
of Love
An Introduction to God’s Law of Liberty
The Bounds
of Love
An Introduction to God’s Law of Liberty
Second Edition
Joel McDurmon
Devoted Books
Dallas , G eorgia
The Bounds of Love: An Introduction to God’s Law of Liberty
Second Edition
© Copyright 2019 by Joel McDurmon
Published by:
Devoted Books
P.O. Box 611
Braselton, GA 30517
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a re-
trieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means without the prior
written permission of the publisher, except for brief quotations in critical
reviews or articles.
Printed in the United States of America.
ISBN: 978–1–07451–918–6
Dedicated to
the millions of victims
unnecessarily harassed, fined,
beaten, imprisoned, dispossessed,
molested, raped, enslaved, injured
scarred, maimed, and killed
at the hands of unbiblical
governments, laws, judges
police, prosecutors, and prisons.
Table of Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1. A Simple Definition . . . . . . . 17
2. Rightly Dividing the Law . . . . . . 26
3. Where to Draw the Lines . . . . . . 42
4. The Abiding Judicial Standard . . . . . 70
5. What It would Look Like . . . . . . 86
6. How it Will Come to Pass . . . . . . 101
7. What is Not Theonomy . . . . . . 116
Epilogue . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Bibliographic Essay . . . . . . . . . 141
Scripture Index . . . . . . . . . . 146
Preface
(to the First Edition)
W hile there are scores of volumes on God’s law (“Theon-

omy”) already, and even a couple of introductory-level
works, a new one is in order. With this book, I hope to address a
few simple but serious needs. Popular demand is one, but others
pertain to perennially nagging questions.
First, there is simply a generation of new and young disciples
practically demanding that I write this work. This alone is moti-
vation enough to write it. The particular nature of this demand,
however, bears recurring inquiries that intensify the drive. In
some cases, a reader merely desires to know more; while reading
any of the various volumes already written could satify that desire
in large part, it often comes in the form of questions that even
our most prolific and profound writers simply have not directly
or adequately addressed. This observation is not to take anything
away from them or to diminish their crucial and foundational
contributions. It is merely to acknolwedge what all of us have
always admitted: much work remains. While we have proven the
continuing validity of God’s Law in general, tough questions over
many specifics have always remained. Answering this demand
meant forcing myself to address those tough questions head-on,
to make my best attempt to fill some of the remaining voids, and
to offer both clarifications and important corrections in the pro-
ix
x The Boun ds o f Love
cess. The introductory reader should therefore, come away from
this book with some basic questions answered as well as some of
the most difficult questions addressed, if not settled. From there
they will be able to tackle the great body of work from others, and
perhaps add to it.
One more word regarding the relationship of this book to
the existing body of theonomic writing: I have liberally used and
everything but directly quoted from R. J. Rushdoony, Greg Bahn-
sen, Gary North, James B. Jordan, and others. In some places,
whole sections are dependent upon the works of these others. I
have also relied upon a few theological and historical works not
from theonomic writers. In an effort to keep the reading format
of this introduction as simple as possible, I have decided not to
footnote or endnote much. I did not wish to comprise this contri-
bution of multiple series of quotations from others, but to base it
simply upon Scripture as much as possible. I think I have largely
succeeded in this goal, with the necessary exception of the his-
torical review in chapter seven where I have footnoted the vari-
ous historical figures I have cited. As far as the rest, you can read
my acknowledgments and comments on the books to which I am
indebted in the bibliographical essay at the end. The old line about
standing on the shoulders of giants applies here like everywhere
else, and they deserve giant credit.
Finally, important discoveries in this study have led me to
revise my views on a couple points. Long-time students of The-
onomy, especially, will be keen to observe.
Joel McDurmon
American Vision
Powder Springs, GA
February, 2016
Introduction
T he word “Theonomy” comes from two Greek words, theos

(God) and nomos (law). Together, these words simply
mean “God’s law.” Since every Christian has some view of the role
of God’s standards for living, every Christian believes in “Theon-
omy” in some way.
The label “Theonomy,” however, has come to describe a par-
ticular doctrine of the role of God’s law that includes the applica-
tion of aspects of Old Testament law to all of life including the
social realm and civil government. Those who hold to this view are
properly called “theonomists.” This book teaches the perspective
of this more specific “all of life” view.
Love and law

The Christian should never dismiss Scripture’s comprehen-
sive witness to the greatness, goodness, and justness of God’s law.
The Psalmist declares this general truth over and over. Just a few
instances say things like:
Oh how I love your law! It is my meditation all the

day (Psa. 119:97).
Your righteousness is righteous forever, and your

law is true (Psa. 119:142).
1
2 The Boun ds o f Love
The judgments of the LORD are true; they are
righteous altogether (Psa. 19:9 NASB).
Examples like this could be multiplied. Even in the New Tes-
tament, where Paul teaches that we are no longer “under the law”
and freed from the curse of the law, he nevertheless also adds that
the Law is “holy and righteous, and good” (Rom. 7:12). He follows,
“I agree with the law, that it is good” (7:16), and “I delight in the
law of God, in my inner being” (7:18). The problem is not with the
law itself, but with our sinful selves who cannot keep it: “For we
know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin”
(7:14). “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it
does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot” (Rom. 8:7). The
Christian has a different mindset, however: “You, however, are not
in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in
you” (8:9). Considering what he has just said about the law, what
should this difference of mindset tell you about the Christian’s ori-
entation to the law?
The standard for Spirit-led, Christian living, Paul teaches,
is that of love. It is here where the tie back to the law of God is
explicit, although often unacknowledged. Later in the same epis-
tle, Paul says,
Owe no one anything, except to love each other,

for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.
For the commandments, “You shall not commit
adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal,
You shall not covet,” and any other command-
ment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love
your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to
a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the
law (Rom. 13:8–10).
Introduction 3
Love is not contrary to the law. Love is the fulfillment of it. Love
is not a new commandment. Love is the summary of “any other
commandment” God has given. Christians must simply arrive at
the mindset that when God calls us to the standard of “love,” He
is calling us to obey the law He has already published and taught
us in our hearts (Jer. 33; Heb. 8; 10).
The summary of the law

Consider just how explicitly that last sentiment is taught in
Scripture—especially in the New Testament. The best place to
see it is when Jesus was questioned about the greatest command-
ment in Matthew 22:37–40:
But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced

the Sadducees, they gathered together. And one of
them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him.
“Teacher, which is the great commandment in
the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the
Lord your God with all your heart and with all
your soul and with all your mind. This is the great
and first commandment. And a second is like it:
You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these
two commandments depend all the Law and the
Prophets.”
Jesus says that the greatest commandment is to love God,

and the second greatest is to love your neighbor. While some-
times misunderstood as new commandments, these are actually
taken directly from the Old Testament Law itself. The first of
these commandments is found in Deuteronomy 6:4. The second
is found in Leviticus 19:18. Both come from Mosaic law, and the
heart of both is love.
But note that Jesus says all the rest of the Law and the Proph-
ets depends (literally “hangs”) upon the love of God and the love of
neighbor. In short, Paul was teaching the same thing in Romans 13
as Jesus teaches here: love fulfills the law in every commandment.
It should not be difficult to discern that in this case, the oppo-
site relationship must be true: if you wish to pursue love, you must
abide by the Law of God.
Love is not an emotion, as our culture routinely portrays it,
and we often think as well. Love is a standard of action. If you wish
to know the definitions and objective standards of what it means
“to love,” you will need to read the law. What is loving and what is
not loving will be defined there. There you will find the divinely
revealed boundaries of the actions and reactions of love.
This applies in civil law as well. For example, is it loving to allow
a murderer to run free in society? No. Then what penalty should
they bear that could be called “loving”? The Bible gives an objective
standard. What about a thief? Would it be loving to allow a thief
to go unpunished? No. But woud it be loving to give a petty thief
the death penalty? No. The objective standard of love must meet
both the victim and the criminal properly, else we fall short of the
standard of love. He who loves will be understood to do so only as
far as he is in accord with God’s revealed law, for God’s command-
ments are the substance of love.
This is the exact lesson Jesus taught His disciples during His
upper room discourse (John 14–16). He said, “If you love me, you
will keep my commandments” (John 14:15). He repeats it:
Whoever has my commandments and keeps them,

he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be
loved by my Father, and I will love him and mani-
fest myself to him.” Judas (not Iscariot) said to him,
“Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to
us, and not to the world?” Jesus answered him, “If
Introduction 5
anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my
Father will love him, and we will come to him and
make our home with him. Whoever does not love
me does not keep my words. And the word that
you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me
(14:21–24).
He repeats the lesson:
As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you.

Abide in my love. If you keep my commandments,
you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my
Father’s commandments and abide in his love.
These things I have spoken to you, that my joy
may be in you, and that your joy may be full. This
is my commandment, that you love one another
as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than
this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.
You are my friends if you do what I command you
(15:9–14).
The author of this Gospel reiterates the same teaching in his

later Epistle:
By this we know that we love the children of God,

when we love God and obey his commandments.
For this is the love of God, that we keep his com-
mandments. And his commandments are not bur-
densome (1 John 5:2–3).
So we can see that love is not a new law or a replacement for

the law—it is nothing more than a summary of the law. To love
God means to obey His commandments. To love neighbor means
to treat them according to God’s revealed law.
The law and the New Covenant
In the light of this truth about love and the law, it is not sur-
prising to see both feature in God’s reasoning for the New Cov-
enant itself. It was prophesied by Jeremiah:
Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD,

when I will make a new covenant with the house
of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the cov-
enant that I made with their fathers on the day
when I took them by the hand to bring them out
of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke,
though I was their husband, declares the LORD.
For this is the covenant that I will make with the
house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD:
I will put my law within them, and I will write it on
their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall
be my people. And no longer shall each one teach
his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know
the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the
least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD.
For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remem-
ber their sin no more ( Jer. 31:31–34; emphasis
added).
The author of the book of Hebrews quotes this passage twice

to support his argument that the Old Covenant was passing away
and the new one had arrived in Christ:
For if that first covenant had been faultless, there
would have been no occasion to look for a sec-
ond. For he finds fault with them when he says:
“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will establish a new covenant with the
Introduction 7
house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not
like the covenant that I made with their fathers
on the day when I took them by the hand to bring
them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not
continue in my covenant, and so I showed no con-
cern for them, declares the Lord. For this is the
covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my
laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts,
and I will be their God, and they shall be my peo-
ple. And they shall not teach, each one his neigh-
bor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the
Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of
them to the greatest. For I will be merciful toward
their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no
more.”
In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first

one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and
growing old is ready to vanish away (Heb. 8:7–13;
emphasis added).
The same epistle quotes the same passage directly again in

10:15–18. In both cases, the phrase “I will put my laws into their
minds, and write them on their hearts” appears. It is clear that at
the heart of the New Covenant is not a new law, or no law, but a
new mode of administering the same law of God among His peo-
ple. This does not mean certain aspects of it do not change (and
we will discuss this later), but it does make clear that the law in
general continues into the New Covenant.
The validity of the holy, just, spiritual, and good law of God,
therefore, remains into eternity. It is our job to pursue that law of
love to the glory of God in every area of life.
Saved by grace, for good works
Theonomists all know and agree that no one can be saved
by works, or by keeping God’s law. Salvation is by grace alone
through faith alone in Christ alone. It is a pure gift of God. It is
not of man’s works lest any man should boast (Eph. 2:8–9). To
God alone shall be all the glory.
Nevertheless, too many people who quote Ephesians 2:8–9
fail to go on and quote verse 10: “For we are his workmanship, cre-
ated in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared before-
hand, that we should walk in them.” Scripture teaches that we are
not saved by works, but the same passage of Scripture teaches us
that we are saved for good works. So there is no question that good
works have a necessary role in the life of the believer. That role may
not be as necessary for salvation, but it is still necessary as a result
of salvation.
Uses of the law

Most Christians agree that God’s law reveals to us His stan-
dards for righteousness. Most would agree on certain uses of this
law. First, we would agree that God’s righteous standards show us
why we need Christ: we can never measure up to His perfect stan-
dard. In this aspect, His law convicts us as hopeless sinners, and
we despair of any ability or merit on our own part to escape dam-
nation. This use of the law should drive us to Christ alone seek-
ing our salvation. Since the law teaches us our need for Christ and
leads us to Him in this way, it is usually referred to as the “peda-
gogical” use of the law.
Most Christians also agree that the law provides a standard
by which to restrain evil in society. Various agencies—including
everything from personal relationships, advice of elders and par-
ents, schools, businesses, social customs, and civil governments—
should work together to curtail expressions of evil and promote
Introduction 9
goodness. We see this use of the law most readily in the role of the
civil authorities revealed in Romans 13:
For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but
to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who
is in authority? Then do what is good, and you
will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant
for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for
he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the
servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s
wrath on the wrongdoer (Rom. 13:3–4).
This is God’s minister and he must execute God’s wrath. This

mandates God’s standard, then, as well. We call this use of the
law the “political” or “civil” use, because its function is that of
maintaining civility in society. Note a couple things in regard to
the civil use of the law. First, this use pertains to external behav-
ior only. It has no reference, generally, to justification by faith or
our salvation. It is merely a standard of behavior for all people. As
such, secondly, this use of the law applies to unbelievers as well
as believers. All, regardless of faith or not, are expected to behave
according to this standard, and civil authorities are ordained of
God to enforce certain external standards on all people alike.
A third use of the law is accepted throughout the world of
Reformed theology, including most confessional Baptists (but not
among most Lutherans, among others). This use is called “norma-
tive” or “didactic” (meaning “instructive”) and refers to the use of
the law as a pattern of good works for righteous behavior which
the redeemed Christian should follow.
Abiding standards
The teaching of Theonomy agrees with and promotes all three
of the traditionally accepted uses of the law, though is most nota-
ble in regard to the civil use. Our view appears most distinctly
in the beliefs that Scripture reveals standards by which the civil
magistrate is bound to perform his task, that these standards are
revealed primarily in Mosaic judicial law, and that they remain
applicable for civil magistrates today.
Theonomists contend that this view should not be a point of
controversy. After all, it is an argument based upon Scriptural
standards, not man’s. It is just this type of standard upon which
we all agree in regard to the other uses of the law. In regard to
the law as a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ, we look to God’s
revealed law, including Mosaic law. In regard to moral stan-
dards for Christian life and ethics, we look to God’s revealed law,
including Mosaic law. But then, in regard to standards for civil
and political ethics, most theologians depart from revealed stan-
dards and argue that human standards, or some other standards
(“nature”), are adequate. But not only is this argument a depar-
ture from the pattern accepted in the other uses of the law, it is
also itself not found in Scripture. It is utterly devoid of Scriptural
root or directive.
New Testament mandate

What then does the Bible say about the civil use of the law?
The easiest place to see the abiding validity of God’s Old Testament
law in its civil and judicial standards is in 1 Timothy 1. Here Paul
warns Timothy against false “teachers of the law” and instructs him
in regard to the proper use of the law. Here is what he says,
As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia,

remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain
persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to
devote themselves to myths and endless genealo-
gies, which promote speculations rather than the
stewardship from God that is by faith. The aim of
Introduction 11
our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and
a good conscience and a sincere faith. Certain per-
sons, by swerving from these, have wandered away
into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the
law, without understanding either what they are
saying or the things about which they make confi-
dent assertions.
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it

lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid
down for the just but for the lawless and disobedi-
ent, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy
and profane, for those who strike their fathers
and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral,
men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars,
perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound
doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the
glory of the blessed God with which I have been
entrusted (1 Tim. 1:3–11).
Let’s break this down into its key points. First, Paul is pro-
moting “the stewardship from God that is by faith.” The word
for “stewardship” (v. 4) here is oikonomia, from which we get our
words “economy” and “economics.” It literally translates as “law of
the house.” It is a term of governance. I actually prefer the NASB
here which translates the word as “administration.” This is a pas-
sage in which Paul is contrasting the frivolous, superstitious use of
the law against that use of it which accords with the government
of God which we are to obey “by faith.”
Second, Paul contrasts those who want to be “teachers of the
law,” but do not understand what they are talking about, with the
proper use of the law. He is not arguing against the teaching or
use of the law in itself, but against those who want to do so in a
way contrary to the law and the gospel. To this end, Paul affirms
that the law is in fact “good,” but only “if one uses it lawfully.”
It may sound funny for someone to say that the right way
to use the law is “lawfully.” And just to be sure, the Greek con-
tains the exact same redundancy: nomos (law) must be used nomi-
mos (lawfully). It sounds like a circular argument. But that is just
Paul’s point: there is only one standard by which we can interpret
God’s word, and that is God’s word. So, in order to understand
God’s law, we need to read and understand God’s law—in this
case, as opposed to “myths” and “genealogies,” but also as opposed
to man’s laws, nature’s laws, or anyone else’s laws. There is no neu-
trality in this universe: we will conform either to God’s law or to
someone else’s law. Only God is the ultimate authority. The Scrip-
tures say that “when God made a promise to Abraham, since he
had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself ” (Heb.
6:13). The same is true with regard to His law: there is no other
standard by which to appeal in order to understand and apply His
law. Only His law is authoritative.
This means first that we should read the law for what it actually
says. Many people condemn God’s law based on misunderstand-
ings of it. This problem can often be remedied by merely reading
what the law actually says. Some people fear it for irrational rea-
sons. Some people dismiss it because they think the Old Testa-
ment was harsh and cruel while the New Testament is loving and
forgiving. In fact, this view is not only incorrect according to Scrip-
ture, but was promoted by a heretic named Marcion who denied
the authority of most of the Bible—including half of the New Tes-
tament!—because of this view of the Old Testament. It was con-
demned by the church as a heresy way back in the third century.
Instead, those who would use the law lawfully as Paul instructs
must read the law itself, read what it actually teaches, and read all
of it in the context of all of Scripture together.
Introduction 13
Third, Paul teaches here that the law applies not only as a
guide for the life of believers, but as a rule outside the church. He
says specifically that the law, in this sense, “is not laid down for
the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and
sinners, for the unholy and profane” (v. 9). This verse confirms the
“civil” use of the law mentioned above—the use it has for restrain-
ing evil in society.
Here we must repeat that this use of the law is for the lawless,
ungodly, and sinners—people outside the church. We must also
remember that most Christians accept this use of the law—it is
not a controversial distinctive of Theonomy. Many critics object
to Theonomy in modern civil law by arguing something like, “You
can’t impose biblical laws on an unbelieving people.” Yet this is
not only exactly how Paul says the law applies in this verse, but
for hundreds of years most Christians have not objected to this
very use of the law! Yet when Theonomists say that the standards
of that law are revealed in Scripture, some critics apparently for-
get that they themselves believe that God’s law in general applies
outside the church in this way. Theonomists simply note that even
the content of the law appears in this passage as well—the very
next thing.
Fourth, therefore, Paul cites the civil and judicial sections
of Mosaic Law here. We will discuss categories of biblical law in
more detail later. For now, we simply note that Paul does not con-
fine himself to the Ten Commandments, or the “love” command-
ments. He specifically cites from that portion of the law which is
most often dismissed today: the judicial “case” laws that follow
after the Ten Commandments, as well as points within Leviticus
and Deuteronomy.
In addition to references to murder and lies which are obviously
drawn directly from the Ten Commandments, Paul also specifi-
cally cites, among others, “those who strike their fathers and moth-
ers,” “men who practice homosexuality,” “enslavers,” and “perjurers.”
Striking parents appears in Exodus 21:15. Likewise, “enslavers” is a
reference to the very next verse in Exodus which prohibits kidnap-
ping and slave-trading. Both of these laws are considered to be part
of the civil and judicial law of Israel. They are case examples of how
the Ten Commandments apply in the realm of civil government.
Paul is citing them here as the proper use of the law, including out-
side the church, in the New Testament.
Similarly, the reference to “men who practice homosexual-
ity” comes from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. The latter of these
two passages makes clear that this is also a civil law because it
prescribed the death penalty—the role of the civil magistrate. In
the same way, “perjury” is a reference to Deuteronomy 19:16–19.
This law designates that false witness in a court case (“perjury”) is
a serious crime and specifies the just punishment of it (whatever
punishment would have fallen upon the accused is to be imposed
upon the false witness).
So with just a little Bible study, we can see that Paul’s “law-
ful” use of the law includes content from that part of Mosaic Law
which pertains to civil government. It is no wonder, then, that we
see the author of Hebrews stating that Mosaic Law “proved to be
reliable,” that by it “every transgression or disobedience received
a just retribution,” and that we should therefore “pay much closer
attention to what we have heard, lest we should drift away from it”
(Heb. 2:1–2). It is only here that we see just punishments delivered
by God Himself.
Fifth, Paul closes this brief discussion of the lawful use of the
law by saying it is “in accordance with the gospel” (1 Tim. 1:11).
Far too often, any mention of law in the Christian life at all, let
alone specific reference to Old Testament judicial law, is dismissed
quickly with sayings like “we’re not under law but grace,” or “that’s
law not gospel.” Here it is unavoidably clear that Paul teaches that
Introduction 15
the proper use of the law is in accordance with the gospel, not sepa-
rate from it or opposed to it.
We can see this same accord in Christ’s Great Commission
to His disciples (Matthew 28:18–20). He not only commanded
them to make disciples and baptize them, but also to teach them
“to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:20). While
the preaching of the gospel is the heart and soul of the Great Com-
mission, the enduring teaching of God’s commandments and obe-
dience to them is just as necessary and obligatory to it.
So, what does 1 Timothy 1:3–11 reveal to us? Paul teaches
that we should avoid aberrant views of the law, and instead seek to
obey the administration of God. This administration involves the
lawful use of the law. This lawful use applies outside of the church,
includes civil government, and follows the statutes for civil gov-
ernment revealed in Mosaic Law. Finally, this use of the law is in
sweet accord with the gospel itself. This is the distinctive teaching of
Theonomy in a nutshell. As you can see, it is simply straight, bibli-
cal teaching.
Conclusion
The New Testament teaching on God’s law, therefore, is that
love is the highest of Christian virtues. It is the greatest of the
commandments of the law itself. Love is the law upon which all
other law depends. It is the summary of the law. Since it is a sum-
mary, then in order to understand the details and nuances of the
law of love, we must look back to the nuances and applications of
the detail of the law in the law itself. This law is at the heart of the
New Covenant, the heart of Jesus’ teaching to His disciples, the
heart of the disciples’ teaching in their epistles, and the heart of
the Great Commission.
This perfect law applies not only in Christian life and Chris-
tian ethics, but outside the church as well. The lawful use of the
law is not only to lead us to Christ for salvation and to direct the
Christian in holiness and righteousness, but also to provide stan-
dards of justice in the civil realm, even among unbelievers.
With this basic background, we are now in a position to start
talking about theological definitions.
1
A Simple Definition
I t is unfortunate that theonomists in the past have had to

spend more time saying what Theonomy is not than what
it is. There are good reasons for why this has been the case, but
the fact can also leave newcomers and critics alike frustrated
when searching for a concise definition which is both broad
enough and distinctive enough to be helpful. In this chapter, I
will give my version of that definition. I will also discuss some
of the reasons past theonomists so often have had to spend time
saying what Theonomy is not, as well as often take a defensive
posture. I will show you why some of these reasons are not only
expedient, but necessary.
Before discussing the difficulties in defining a theological term
like “Theonomy,” let me first offer my own simple definition up
front. I will save explanation for later, but for now, let the reader
know where I am going. Theonomy can be defined as follows: the
biblical teaching that Mosaic Law contains perpetual moral stan-
dards for living, including some civil laws, which remain obliga-
tory for today.
“Theonomy” is a much broader subject than merely civil gov-
ernment and social theory, but this is where it is, in my opinion,
most distinct from other positions. It is also where it has been
most controversial, owing to the fact that most Christians in his-
tory have allowed the civil realm to be governed by pagan and
17
humanistic ideas and laws. Biblical direction here has always been
badly needed. Thus, this is precisely where our discussion of a def-
inition of Theonomy will focus.
Stating the definition as I have avoids certain misunderstand-
ings. By including the word “some,” the new or hasty reader will
(or should) at least not get the impression that Theonomy has no
discontinuities with Old Testament law in view. Several critics
have leveled this charge, absurd as it is. Let us foreclose even the
possibility of such a charge up front.
My definition also avoids the common assumption that The-
onomy involves salvation by law or salvation by works. I will dis-
cuss this aspect later as well.
Nevertheless, even if it avoids key misconceptions (which is
not to say that some critics will not draw them anyway), my defi-
nition still leaves questions unanswered. I am willing to live with
this, for this is where the difficulty in definition comes in with any
theological term. You simply cannot give the thumbnail pic and
the hi-res version at the same time. So, before moving on to a more
detailed approach to my definition, let me review the necessity of
my method here.
The problem of theological definition

First, what is a “definition,” after all? I think too often we take
the word for granted, especially in theology. We generally accept
that a definition is a concise statement that tells what something
is or what it means. But such a statement must also necessarily
tell us why that term is distinct from other terms and their mean-
ings. The word “definition” comes from a Latin term—finis—that
literally refers to limits, ends, or boundaries (we get our words
“finish” and “finite” from the same term). Thus, a definition states
the boundaries of meaning for a term—“this far and no more,” as
in, “this, and not that.” Thus a definition not only tells us what
A Simple Definition 19
something is, but also what it is not—by implication at least, if
not directly.
Theonomy is as easy to define as any other complex theological
doctrine, and that’s been part of the problem in defining Theon-
omy in practice: accuracy requires detail, and detail requires space,
time, and patience. After all, it only took roughly three centuries
to hammer out the doctrine of the Trinity, and longer for the dual
nature of Christ. The fact that modern theonomists have worked
for a couple of decades, and that the process has sparked consider-
able controversy, objection, and accusation, ought not surprise or
deter us from continuing the process.
I said I will attempt to give both a concise definition and an
explanation which serves as a fuller definition. Theological defini-
tions especially require such treatments for several reasons. After
all, the more that condensing a statement of a position requires
excluding important details and qualifications, then the more
that statement becomes generalized and less helpful in relating
the distinctives of the position. On the other hand, if the definition
includes only the distinctives divorced from any broader context,
the result may raise so many further questions as to be unhelpful
as anything other than a starting point for a longer discussion.
Worse, in the hands of those who are predetermined to criticize
or even engage in witch-hunts for heresy (and there is no shortage
of such self-proclaimed discerners today), such incomplete defini-
tions provide a smorgasbord for misrepresentations.
A sentiment I once heard from N. T. Wright gets to the point:
“The problem with theology is that if you don’t say everything all
the time, someone will accuse you of leaving something out on
purpose.” In my experience, that is certainly true. In fact, the
truth is even more extreme when the allegedly “left out” portions
are used in some way to portray you as a heretic or nonbeliever.
Some even claim that the allegedly “left out” portions—which
may or may not be what you actually teach—are in fact left out
in an attempt to deceive people into becoming unwitting disciples.
Forcing unfounded accusations like this makes profitable discus-
sion difficult if not impossible.
What results is usually a critic demanding a concise defini-
tion of “Theonomy.” If one simply posits the classic etymological
definition—the application of “God’s law” today—the objection
is immediately raised that all Christians have some view of this,
so this definition is too broad. What is the distinctive that “The-
onomy” brings to the table? If one then adds, for example, Greg
Bahnsen’s phrase “in exhaustive detail,” an objection is immedi-
ately (and rightly) raised concerning ceremonial laws, circumci-
sion, legalism, Judaizing, dietary laws, etc. What about these?
Well, Bahnsen answered such questions and provided qualifica-
tions. “Where?” In 600 pages of his book Theonomy and Christian
Ethics. Then the objection is raised: “You mean to tell me I have
to read 600 pages to get a definition of Theonomy?” Why can’t you
just provide a concise definition? Ugh.
The reason this is difficult is because “the law of God” is a
large and complex set of doctrines which is made more complex by
the change in administrations between the Old and New Cove-
nants. Everyone—even Lutherans, classic Dispensationalists, and
the faddish “New Covenant” theologians—agree that the stan-
dards for Christian ethics are the laws of God in some way and to
some degree. All Christians believe to some degree that there is con-
tinuity between the Old and New Testaments. So, a broad defini-
tion would make everyone a “Theonomist”—and this is obviously
not the case (yet). On the other hand, every Theonomist believes
that much of the Mosaic law is discontinued in the New Cove-
nant. No Theonomist believes in applying circumcision, sacrificial
and ceremonial laws, and several of the other laws. Even if they
would provisionally (for the sake of developing a thesis) adopt a
view like Bahnsen’s “in exhaustive detail,” all Theonomists nev-
ertheless believe in many important and radical discontinuities.
Thus, all Christians also believe to some degree that there is discon-
tinuity between the testaments.
The argument between Theonomists and non-Theonomists,
then, is really more about which parts of the law abide, which parts
do not, and why. Providing a concise definition that makes this
clear without itself leaving out necessary parts or raising a myriad
of questions is almost impossible.
The situation this causes for discussion of controversial theo-
logical topics works against concise definitions for the most part
entirely. Whatever may be said in a sentence—let’s say 140 charac-
ters—will almost inevitably leave crucial questions to be explored,
which, unfortunately, usually means assumed in the case of the
undisciplined.
John 3:16
For example, a classic summary verse—a “concise defini-
tion,” if you will—for the Gospel in general has always been John
3:16. (Ironically, the King James Version of this verse is almost
exactly 140 characters—141 if you include all its punctuation).
Yet this verse alone leaves questions unanswered in regard even
to the Gospel itself, let alone further theological questions. Is
“believeth” exclusive here? Are works involved at all? What is
“everlasting life”? Does this mean we will not die physically? What
is the “world”? Does this imply unlimited atonement? Does “who-
soever believeth” imply conditional election? What does “only
begotten Son” mean? Does it have implications for our adoption?
Is Jesus really unique after all? (I ask all of these hypothetically.)
Not a single one of these questions is answered in John 3:16. So
you see, a whole host of further elucidations is required even to
understand properly something as simple as John 3:16. This could
take thousands of words, cross references, and exegesis to dem-
onstrate.
This does not mean, of course, that John 3:16 does not in
general carry the message of salvation. Nor is it to say that no
one can “get saved” by hearing or reading John 3:16 because they
must first read a dozen theology books. But in the context of
understanding, teaching, and debating theological distinctives
with all their nuances and implications, we must take the longer
path.
Creedal orthodoxy
The same process is true for the classic creedal definitions,
as I said above, for the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc. A concise
summary statement like “Three Persons, One Essence,” can be,
and has been, misconstrued in various ways. It took about three
centuries of debate and strife to arrive at the Nicene formulation,
and can the result be called a “concise definition” of the Trinity?
Maybe, maybe not. But does it not leave many questions about the
doctrine of the Trinity unanswered? Indeed, the later addition of
merely one word in Latin—filioque (“and the Son”)—by the Latin
church in A.D. 589 was a key ingredient in the Great Schism
between East and West in A.D. 1054. That can be the difference
between unity and purity in doctrine.
The Trinity is more thoroughly defined by the later “Athana-
sian Creed” which certainly leaves fewer questions unanswered,
but is also so detailed, long (the version we used in seminary cov-
ered three pages), and cumbersome as to relegate it to the fate of
most full theology books: the shelf. In fact, its disuse is so wide-
spread that few Christians—indeed most Protestants—even
know about it.
The doctrine of the incarnation of Christ fared little better.
It took until A.D. 451 to get the orthodox concise definition. It
is a beautifully accurate statement of roughly 200 words. And
yet even this came only after rivers of ink, and years of intense
debate and church politics. Even still, subsequent theologians
have found it necessary to publish thousands of pages saying
what these few words mean and how they apply. Oh, and wars
ensued as well.
The same could be said for dozens of key doctrines all
throughout church history. Imagine a whole Reformation start-
ing over one monk’s academic objections to the Papal doctrine of
indulgences. Imagine millions of pages of definitional battle lines
being drawn over justification, ordination, ecclesiology, liturgy,
sacraments, and more—not to mention spilled blood, charred
flesh, and asphyxiations.
If you demand theology fit only for soundbites, bumper stick-
ers, and Twitter, you may have a problem with the whole history
of Christianity. That which is concise will almost always exclude
key details. That which is both accurate and thorough will almost
always require time and patience on the part of the reader.
In short, do not demand only thumbnail sketches when the
truth requires a full schematic; and do not complain about not
having details when you only asked for a thumbnail sketch to
begin with. There is a discussion to be had. Have it, learn from it,
or stay out of it.
Defining Theonomy
Because of the nature of theological definition just discussed,
we need both a concise definition and a more detailed treatment
of Theonomy. It is not enough simply to affirm, for example,
“Mosaic civil laws are obligatory for civil governments today.” This
is decent, but represents only part of the broader theonomic view
(civil laws). It is part of the part which is most distinctive about
the theonomic position, but is nevertheless not accurate enough.
It does not specify, for example, “all,” “none” or “some” in regard
to those Mosaic civil laws, and thus anyone taking either an affir-
mative and negative position could actually make a valid case
depending upon how they qualified and interpreted it. For the
record, no Theonomist would say that all Mosaic civil laws remain
obligatory, so any critic interpreting it that way would not achieve
very much. But with that particular resolution, a critic could nev-
ertheless attempt to make such a case. They could also, however,
argue that no Mosaic civil law has any abiding validity today, but
hardly anyone today holds such a view. To avoid such misunder-
standing, it would be more accurate to say “Some Mosaic civil laws
. . . ,” but this puts us back at the original need to define where the
lines are drawn.
The concise definition I have given above addresses these con-
cerns while stating the definition very concisely:
Theonomy is the biblical teaching that Mosaic

law contains perpetual moral standards for living,
including some civil laws, which remain obligatory
for today.
This makes it clear up front that Theonomy is 1) about moral

standards for living, not justification or salvation, 2) includes, but
is not limited to, civil government, and 3) involves only some, not
all, of Mosaic law.
Conclusion
This definition is clear, accurate, and distinctive. It is concise
yet delineated enough that those who would derive from it that
Theonomy teaches keeping the whole law, no discontinuity, works
righteousness, salvation by works, Judaizing, Phariseeism, etc.,
are either seriously confused or obviously grinding an agenda and
should not be taken seriously.
Nevertheless, any concise definition will leave further details
to supply and questions to answer. So now that we have the con-
cise version, the next few chapters will cover the qualifications and
more detailed questions for a fuller definition.
2
Rightly Dividing the Law
M y concise definition of Theonomy raises some

important questions. For this reason, a fuller treat-
ment is in order to address at least a couple of these.
For example, is Theonomy primarily concerned only with civil
government or politics? The short answer is no, and this is already
implied in the concise definition, as well as clear in the Introduc-
tion. Theonomy is indeed much broader than civil government.
It is about all of life—individual, business, work, family, church,
medicine, science, etc. It is, however, the unique position of The-
onomy to say that Mosaic judicial law contains abiding standards
to which civil governments today remain obliged. In this view, the
whole of the word of God reveals abiding standards for the whole
of life and society.
But the most pressing question to be discussed is that of how
to categorize the different laws God has given us. This will help us
determine why they continue today or have been abrogated.
Biblical categories for biblical law

The most important questions that my definition leaves unan-
swered are, “Which Mosaic laws continue and which do not?” and
“How do we know?” After all, the position that the perpetual and
obligatory moral standards includes “some” civil laws means that
we have to say which ones are included, which ones are not, and
26
Rightly Dividing the Law 27
why. By what standard shall we determine? In this section I will
argue that whatever functional categories we determine Mosaic
law may be divided into, for the purposes of continuity in the New
Testament, there are ultimately only two categories. I will also
argue that the standard by which we determine this is Scripture
itself. The Bible, not man, tells us this.
The importance of maintaining clear distinctions and a clear
standard applies to all areas of law, not just civil government, but
it receives particularly keen attention in the civil realm because
several of the Mosaic civil laws have death penalties attached to
them, and others would require considerable moderation of cur-
rent penalties. Shall we execute Sabbath breakers today? What
about adulterers? Whatever the propriety of determining a posi-
tion based on how these questions are answered first—which does
happen, unfortunately—they do have tremendous import for
society. Getting the answer wrong would obviously be tragic. But
then again, a wrong answer either way would be tragic.
Theologians have arrived at all kinds of answers to this ques-
tion. The differing views span the entire spectrum from arguing
that no Old Testament laws remain today to arguing that virtu-
ally all do. In the middle, some argue that only a few laws apply,
and others say more or even most. Some say that what laws do
apply only apply in a spiritual way for the church. Others argue
that some laws apply outside the church in the realm of civil gov-
ernment, but only certain “principles” apply, and that things like
the actual punishments prescribed in Old Testament law do not
apply.
At the heart of these disagreements are a couple of main fac-
tors: 1) the relationship between Old and New Testaments, 2)
different types (or categories) of law which appear in the Old Tes-
tament. Only extreme positions hold that either none or all of the
laws still oblige; and since I have already shown in the Introduc-
tion how the New Testament calls for God’s law in general as an
abiding standard for Christians and for standards of civil righ-
teousness outside the church, we will deal here with the broad
spectrum of those that argue some laws abide and others do not.
This means we will deal mainly with the second question: we
must examine the categories Scripture uses to explain which laws
remain and which do not.
First, the most famous categorization of the Old Testament
law, in the Reformed traditions anyway, has been called the
“three-fold” distinction: the three categories being moral, judicial,
and ceremonial.
We can see this three-fold division easily enough in the struc-
ture of the law. In Exodus 20, God gives the Ten Command-
ments—the moral law. In chapters 21–23, God has Moses speak
a series of mostly judical laws to the people. These are written in a
book, and the covenant is ratified on these terms by the people in
chapter 24. Finally, in chapters 25–30, God reveals to Moses the
pattern for the Tabernacle and the priestly worship. With these
three sections, we can see the functional division of the law into
moral, judicial, and ceremonial categories. But whether these cat-
egorical lines are absolute, and whether they determine continuity
or discontinuity are far less clear.
This view has been widely adopted, but less commonly agreed
upon in substance. All agree that the “moral” category—usually
including at least part of the Ten Commandments—still applies,
but arguments remain as to exactly what beyond the Ten Com-
mandments can be categorized as moral, and to what extent it
applies. Arguments also exist over whether the Ten Command-
ments as a whole is “moral” and thus abiding, or whether aspects
of it (for example, the curses and promises attached to the sec-
ond commandment, Exodus 20:5–6) are peculiar to Israel only.
All also agree that the ceremonial laws (sacrifices, temple rites,
priesthood, feast days, etc.) no longer apply, but even here argu-
ments exist as to exactly how and why (with some theologians, for
example, dispensationalists, arguing that many of the temple rites
and sacrifices will be revived during a future millennium; likewise,
those pursuing elements of high liturgy may actually appeal to the
pattern laid down for the Old Testament priesthood). Finally, the
civil category gives rise to important arguments as well. Some see
important moral elements in the judicial “case” laws of the Old
Testament, and these, most would agree, remain today. But there
is little agreement (or really even discussion) as to which of these
laws (or parts of laws) constitute “moral” elements and which do
not. Further, it seems to be a majority (though very modern) posi-
tion to deny any moral aspect to the Mosaic civil law and to dis-
miss these laws in their entirety as abrogated along with the cer-
emonial laws.
In the end, despite the witness of the great Reformed confes-
sions—for example, the Westminster Confession of Faith and the
London Baptist Confession—to this three-fold distinction, there has
never been consensus on important terms and aspects of it. Even if
all agree that these three categories are properly biblical, there is no
agreed-upon standard for determining which laws belong in which
categories, and thus which abide and which do not.
In this very strain, some Reformed and later Puritan theolo-
gians of both Reformed and Baptist backgrounds arrived at what
could be called a four-fold distinction of the law. These saw the
traditional abiding moral core and an abrogated ceremonial set,
but then divided the third category of “civil” (or “ judicial”) into
two divisions of its own. The first judicial division included those
judicial laws which were tied directly to the ceremonial law and
the ancient state of Israel and thus were abrogated along with it.
The second set, however, were those case laws which were tied to
the moral law, and thus abide along with it. We will cover these
particular theologians and their arguments more thoroughly later.
It is enough now simply to understand that they exist and what
their position was.
This position is important because it highlights the real
nature of the problem: the truth is that all parties involved in
this long-enduring argument hold ultimately to a two-fold divi-
sion of the law. This is not merely to introduce yet another wrin-
kle in an already complicated discussion. Rather, it is an attempt
to simplify the problem and explain why it has so far not been
resolved. The two divisions are these: those laws which abide,
and those which do not. With rare exceptions, no one has given
a scriptural argument to support their positions of any other cat-
egories, or especially how particular Old Testament laws fit into
them.
Those that struggled and ended up defining four categories
merely arrived at a more complicated version of this two-fold dis-
tinction: in the four-fold distinction, we basically have the judicial
law tied back to two other categories, one which abides (moral)
and one which does not (ceremonial). So, we really, ultimately
have only a two-fold distinction here as well—those laws which
abide and those which do not. Likewise, the more traditional and
more popular three-fold distinction includes variants in which
either some or none of the judicial laws are abrogated, and so it
really falls under the same assessment.
In this light, we can still accept the classic three-fold division
of the confessions as a functional distinction. “Civil” is certainly
separate and distinct from temple, priesthood, sacrifice, or “cer-
emonial” law functionally, and is certainly a separate functional
aspect from the declaration of core moral principles. But it can
hardly be an absolute distinction by which we determine conti-
nuity or termination in the New Testament. After all, the com-
mandment against murder is certainly moral, but it also certainly
has civil ramifications. We ought therefore to inquire of the con-
verse, and we will find that virtually all of the civil side of that
equation is just as much moral as it is civil—including the level
of civil punishment prescribed. We will discuss this aspect more
under the chapter “The Abiding Judicial Standard.”
The language of the Westminster Confession of Faith makes
these various distinctions clear. When it says that the civil or
judicial laws “expired together with the State of that people; not
obliging under any now,” it does not leave this as a blanket abro-
gation. Instead, it concludes, “further than the general equity
thereof may require.”1 This, of course, means two things: we must
consider what is meant by “general equity” (we will do this later),
and we must acknowledge that whatever part of the judicial laws
does in fact involve “general equity” does in fact abide today and
oblige civil government. This means the Confession’s underlying
assumption is that some part of the Mosaic civil code applies to
civil governments today.
In short, behind the classic three-fold functional distinction
of the law is in reality a more fundamental two-fold distinction.
All discussion about categories of the law, unless it focuses only
on the functions each category represents, really does boil down to
a more fundamental discussion of whether any given Old Testa-
ment law stands or does not stand. There are at least some distinc-
tions within Old Testament law itself that we can see on the very
surface of reading the text. There are others we will have to dis-
cern with more detailed exegesis.
Non-binding commandments
One set of commandments we must see as not binding are
instances of particular commands to an individual. An example of
this would be the command for Samuel to go anoint a new king
1. Westminster Confession of Faith, 19.4.

(David) at a particular place and time (Jesse’s house in Bethlehem)
(1 Sam. 16). Another example would be Saul being commanded
to destroy the entire Amalekite civilization—man, woman, child,
and cattle at a particular time (1 Sam. 15).
These commandments were special revelations given to spe-
cific individuals at specific times for specific purposes. We are
not to generalize social principles as law from them. For exam-
ple, we are not to look at Samuel’s mission here and conclude
that from henceforth, all civil officials must be descended from
Jesse and anointed in a special ceremony at his house in Bethle-
hem. Nor should we look at the instance with Saul and conclude
any state policy from it. We should not deduce from it that we
must wage all wars with the mission being to annihilate the ene-
my’s civilization totally, including women, children, and prop-
erty. Despite the fact that Saul himself was judged harshly for
rebellion and witchcraft merely for failing in only a small part
of this mission (saving the cattle and King Agag alive), we must
not attach to it any abiding policy. (We can, however, learn the
general lesson that we must obey God utterly in what He does
command to us.)
Similarly, in the New Testament, Paul was given specific
directives via the Holy Spirit for him in his mission trips. For
example, he was forbidden to visit Asia or Bythinia to evangelize
(Acts 16:6, 7). Should we deduce from these commandments that
the Gospel is generally, always forbidden to be preached in Asia or
northern Turkey? Obviously not.
We should be careful, therefore, when drawing meaning from
commandments that had only specific personal, temporal, local,
and/or purposive application.
In addition to such specific personal commands, there are
also positive commands for distinct incidents. This would include,
for example, God’s one-time command for Israel to exterminate
the Canaanites tribes. Such positive commandments should be
viewed very similarly to the specific commandments just dis-
cussed except that they are given to a broader group of people.
Nevertheless, they still pertain to a special mission, purpose, and/
or time only.
The Canaanite crusade is a perfect example of this type of
law. It was for ancient Israel only and in the Promised Land only.
It also pertained to God’s special presence in the altar fire in the
land, as we shall see. It does not apply to rules of warfare or inter-
national relations in general. In fact, Israel was given a different set
of laws governing warfare in general where the specific Canaanite
nations in the Land were not involved (see Deut. 20). This distinc-
tion is critical because there are, even today, respected theologians
who appeal to the Canaanite genocides as providing a “crusade”
model for modern warfare.2 In light of the qualifications made in
the text, and further general laws given in addition, we must not
apply these commandments today.
The shadows
We can extend our understanding of positive commands for
distinct incidents to all aspects of the Old Testament law which
had only temporal application. This category accounts for the
vast bulk of Old Testament laws which are no longer in effect. It
includes the majority of what are traditionally called “ceremonial”
laws, as well as others.
The primary places we hear stark statements of discontinu-
ity are in the books of Galatians and Hebrews. When properly
understood, both give us a similar answer: while speaking in stark
and absolute terms, a close examination reveals that each is speak-
ing of only a portion of the law as being discontinued—namely, the
2. See Harold O. J. Brown, “Preventive War,” in War: Four Christian Views,

ed. by Robert G. Clouse (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1991).
types and shadows of the Old Testament priesthood, temple, and
sacrificial system. Let us look at the instances in these two books.
Galatians and “the weak and beggarly elements”
In the third chapter of Galatians, the word “law” appears 15
times in only 29 verses, and almost every time it appears in a nega-
tive light. Here is a representative sample:
Is the law then contrary to the promises of God?

Certainly not! For if a law had been given that
could give life, then righteousness would indeed
be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned every-
thing under sin, so that the promise by faith in
Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
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 justi-
fied 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 (Gal. 3:21–26).
A couple things stand out here: first, there are no catego-

ries of law being discussed here, just “the law.” At this point, we
don’t know if Paul is speaking of the whole law as a single unit
or only part of it. We will have to deduce this point from other
passages. Second, Paul is clearly talking about a cessation of “the
law” in these passages. “The law” was an imprisonment—a custo-
dianship akin to slavery (see Gal. 4:1–7)—that lasted only until
Christ came.
With no further understanding, it would be easy to conclude
from this that the entire law—“the law”—was abrogated when
Christ came. That which Paul called a “schoolmaster to lead us to
Christ” included the entirety of Old Testament law, and it is now
null and void.
The problem with this view is that it would create a contradic-
tion with the many passages we have already seen. The law is holy,
just, and good. Paul appeals to the lawful use of the law, and the
New Testament writers appeal to various parts of Mosaic law in
order to support their arguments for Christian ethics. Jesus Him-
self upheld all the law and the prophets via the law of love, and
ordered His disciples to keep His commandments. Further, we
have seen that the New Covenant itself involves God writing His
laws on our hearts! So how could Paul here be arguing that the
entirety of the Law is abrogated?
He is not. He is making a more nuanced point that becomes
clear when you study the context of the letter. In Galatians 4:3, Paul
refers to the time under “the law” as “when we . . . were enslaved to
the elementary principles of the world.” In verse nine, he chides
the Galatians, saying, “How can you turn back again to the weak
and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you
want to be once more?” The KJV memorably translates the phrase
“the weak and beggarly elements of the world.” Was Paul speak-
ing of the whole law here—including the Ten Commandments,
civil laws, etc.? The very next verse begins to illuminate the issue:
Paul’s condemnation is directed against those who “observe days
and months and seasons and years!” (4:10).
It appears that Paul is concentrating on what have been tra-
ditionally called the “ceremonial” aspects of the law. Several of
the Galatians had been deceived into believing they had to fol-
low feast days, Sabbaths, and especially circumcision in order to
be faithful Christians. This was seeking salvation through works,
not faith. Thus it is clear that by condemning “the law” here, Paul
is referring only to two things: 1) any attempt to attain salvation
through any works of the law, and 2) those who require submis-
sion to certain ceremonial aspects of the law.
This issue becomes clearer in two places. First, in Galatian 5,
Paul’s discussion of “the law” turns specifically to circumcision:
For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm

therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of
slavery.
Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept cir-

cumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.
I testify again to every man who accepts circumci-
sion that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You
are severed from Christ, you who would be justi-
fied by the law; you have fallen away from grace.
For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves
eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in
Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumci-
sion counts for anything, but only faith working
through love (Gal. 5:1–6).
This type of behavior is where the term Judaizing comes from.

It is actually used explicitly in the Greek by Paul in Galatians
2:14, when he condemns the Jewish faction among the Galatians
for trying to force Gentiles to “live like Jews” (Ioudaizein). From
the discussion in Galatians 4–5, it appears he had in mind cir-
cumcision primarily and perhaps following the feast days and cal-
endar as well.
This view receives further support when we see Paul making
a similar argument with the same language in Colossians 2. He
argues that even the uncircumcised believers have been spiritu-
ally circumcised in Christ, and that Christ has removed the “legal
demands” against us by nailing them to His cross (Col. 2:8–15).
Then Paul says,
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. . . . If with Christ you died to the
elemental spirits [principles] of the world, why, as
if you were still alive in the world, do you submit
to regulations—“Do not handle, Do not taste,
Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish
as they are used)—according to human precepts
and teachings? These have indeed an appearance
of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and
asceticism and severity to the body, but they are
of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh
(Col. 2:16–23).
Paul is referring here to the same feasts and Sabbaths. In

Galatians he called them “weak and beggarly elements.” Here he
just calls them “elements” or “elemental principles” which serve
only “self-made religion.”
Given that Paul and other New Testament writers elsewhere
uphold much of Old Testament law in very strong terms, it is clear
that he is concerned here with only certain aspects of it which
include ceremonial rites and outward marks of separation, and
which some teachers at the time believed were still necessary in
order to be saved.
By dismissing “the law” in Galatians, therefore, Paul is not
saying that none of the law retains any validity. If this were the
case he would be promoting “faith” at the expense of murder,
theft, rape, arson, covetousness, and every other moral and civil
transgression, along with the abrogated ceremonial rites like feast
days and circumcision. This would be utter nonsense.
It is doubly helpful that Paul, in Colossians, refers to this
superseded part of the law as “shadows of things to come.” It is here
that we find a strong confirmatory link in the book of Hebrews,
and an important doctrine.
Hebrews and the “shadows”

Colossians and Galatians have already given us an important
category by which to think in confirming that some parts (but not
all) of the law are weak and beggarly “elements.” Colossians helps
us further by labeling these elements as mere “shadows” of things
to come. This book of Hebrews uses the same language and opens
the concepts for us further. The relevant passages are Hebrews 8:5
and 10:1. Let us examine them along with their meaning.
Hebrews 8:5 reads,
They [the Old Covenant priests] serve a copy and

shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses
was about to erect the tent, he was instructed
by God, saying, “See that you make everything
according to the pattern that was shown you on
the mountain.”
The letter reiterates this concept in chapter 10:
For since the law has but a shadow of the good

things to come instead of the true form of these
realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that
are continually offered every year, make perfect
those who draw near (Heb. 10:1).
These passages make it clear enough that the “shadows” refer

only to those aspects of the law that pertain to the Old Testament
priesthood, temple (or tabernacle), sacrifices, etc.—with no refer-
ence to what are normally called the moral or judicial aspects of
the law. The distinction appears clearly again in chapter 9 with
more focus on the substance:
Now even the first covenant had regulations for
worship and an earthly place of holiness. For a tent
was prepared, the first section, in which were the
lampstand and the table and the bread of the Pres-
ence. It is called the Holy Place. Behind the second
curtain was a second section called the Most Holy
Place, having the golden altar of incense and the ark
of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in
which was a golden urn holding the manna, and
Aaron’s staff that budded, and the tablets of the
covenant. Above it were the cherubim of glory over-
shadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we can-
not now speak in detail.
These preparations having thus been made, the

priests go regularly into the first section, perform-
ing their ritual duties, but into the second only the
high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not
without taking blood, which he offers for himself
and for the unintentional sins of the people. By this
the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the holy
places is not yet opened as long as the first section
is still standing (which is symbolic for the present
age). According to this arrangement, gifts and sacri-
fices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience
of the worshiper, but deal only with food and drink
and various washings, regulations for the body
imposed until the time of reformation.
But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the

good things that have come, then through the
greater and more perfect tent (not made with
hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once
for all into the holy places, not by means of the
blood of goats and calves but by means of his own
blood, thus securing an eternal redemption (Heb.
9:1–12; emphasis added).
The argument here is the argument of the letter to the

Hebrews in general: the New Covenant is superior to the Old.
Specifically, it has a superior priest (Christ), superior sacri-
fice (Christ Himself, the lamb of God, once-for-all), and supe-
rior temple (heavenly, not earthly). This section makes clear that
these “symbolic” aspects of the law deal only with these things—
things including the “earthly place of holiness,” “priests,” “ritual
duties,” “food and drink and various washings, regulations for
the body.” These are all things Paul previously called out as the
mere “elements” of the law (Col. 2:17).
This being the case, we learn that the priesthood, sacrifices,
rituals, and temple of the Old Covenant are therefore only “sym-
bolic” (the Greek word here literally translates as “a parable”). The
letter argues specifically that these are temporary, being imposed
only until the “time of reformation” (9:10). When was this “time
of reformation”? The letter indicates that this time had already
been inaugurated with Christ, would be finalized once the old
temple was no longer standing (9:8), and that this end was very
near already then: “And what is becoming obsolete and growing
old is ready to vanish away” (Heb. 8:13).
But what about the rest of the law? As we have already seen,
the same passage that says these old elements were obsolete and
about to vanish also says, just three verses earlier, that in the
New Covenant, God will write his law on our minds and hearts
(Heb. 8:10). So, obviously, the entirety of the law did not van-
ish along with the priesthood, temple, rituals, and other elements.
In other words, the rest of the law was not part of the “weak and
beggarly elements,” or the “shadow of good things to come.” The
rest continues in capacities such as we have seen God prescribe in
Hebrews 8:10 and 1 Timothy 1:8–10, as well as the Gospel and
epistles of John.
The great question is, still, how do we know where to draw the
lines? How do we know which parts of the law pertain to the tem-
porary “shadows” of the law and which parts continue as everlast-
ing moral and judicial standards? We will further answer these
questions in the next couple of chapters.
3
Where to Draw the Lines
I f we are going to assert that the Old Testament judicial

code contains some laws which are still morally binding
upon civil governments today, then we need to be able to say which
ones still apply, which ones do not, and why. This chapter will dis-
cuss the basic principles by which these needs are answered, and
outline the terms of continuity and discontinuity between the law
in the Old and New Testaments.
Continuity and discontinuity

In general, Old Testament laws continue into the New Testa-
ment unless the New Testament explicitly repeals them. But we
must be very careful here. The New Testament does not mention
every Old Testament law that it repeals by explicit references to
each individual one. Instead, in different ways, we learn that types
or classes of laws are annulled or transformed in Christ, and thus
many unspecified laws are repealed as well. On the other hand,
we must also acknowledge that many laws must continue in New
Testament times as well.
We can see the principles of continuity and discontinuity
clearly in specific passages. Hebrews 7:12 says that “when there
is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the
law as well.” From this it may appear that once Jesus came, the
entire law was thrown out. But this misunderstanding would
42
Where to Draw the Lines 43
not only be absurd (as we have already rehearsed in regard to
Galatians 3 in chapter 2 above), it is clearly contradicted in the
very next chapter of the same book. Hebrews 8:10 (quoting Jer-
emiah) clearly declares that God will actually write His law on
believers’ hearts in the New Covenant era: “I will put my laws
into their minds, and write them on their hearts.” From these
two passages alone we must deduce that some of the laws have
changed (or have been abrogated altogether) and yet some of it
continues.
Thus the New Testament expresses both continuity and dis-
continuity with Old Testament law in general. The question is,
how do we learn which laws are which? Which ones are discontin-
ued, which ones continue, and how do we know?
Biblical principles of interpretation

The basic question to be answered is this: what aspects of
Old Testament law pertained only to Old Covenant Israel, and
which ones are universal—for the whole world and all times? The
answer to this question must be biblical, and the principle we use
to answer it must also be biblical.
We already began to address this question in our discus-
sion about non-binding commandments, the “shadows,” and
the “weak and beggarly elements of the law” in chapter two. We
saw that what the New Testament explicitly repeals are what are
commonly called “ceremonial” laws. Galatians, Colossians, and
Hebrews make clear that Christ has replaced the Old Covenant
temple, priesthood, Sabbaths, sacrifices. When Hebrews says
that a change in the priesthood necessitates a change in the law, it
is speaking specifically about the law of the priesthood—all of the
laws that were tied to the old Aaronic priesthood system.
But there is another New Testament change that is equally
important: the separation laws. These are rarely discussed under
these terms, but they are crucial to understanding discontinu-
ity in the New Testament. This set of laws was just like the Old
Testament priesthood in some regards: it imposed temporary,
outward, symbolic aspects upon God’s Old Testament people.
Also like the priestly laws, there is a clear and obvious end for
them with the coming of Jesus Christ, and on this, Scripture is
explicit.
So what are these separation laws? They include laws per-
taining to bloodlines and the land—both of which are intimately
connected. They were all the laws imposed on Israel which were
meant to show outwardly that God’s Old Covenant people were
separate from the rest of the nations, and also that the tribes were
to be separate from each other.
Both of these aspects are equally important, and both begin
with the promises made to Abraham. God called Abraham out
from among the nations and promised him that through his seed
God would bless all the families of the earth (Gen. 12:1–3). God
promised that this blessing would come through Abraham’s seed
(Gen. 12:7). Paul makes it clear that this promise was not made to
all the descedants (plural) or Abraham, but to one particular seed:
Christ. He writes,
Now the promises were made to Abraham and to

his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,”
referring to many, but referring to one, “And to
your offspring,” who is Christ (Gal. 3:16).
Paul follows this by explaining that the Mosaic law was added
to the promises specifically to guard this offspring or seed:
Why then the law? It was added because of trans-

gressions, until the offspring should come to
whom the promise had been made (Gal. 3:19).
Note a couple things: first, by “the law” here, again, Paul does
not mean the whole of the law. He is speaking only of the part
that was temporary for the Old Covenant people—for obvious
reasons we have already covered. Secondly, therefore, we see that
there was a clear terminus for this part of the law: it was to last
only until the time that the promised seed, Christ, would come.
After that point, the laws of bloodline separation were no lon-
ger needed, for they had performed their purpose: to illustrate
to the tribes of Israel and to the world that God’s promise to
Abraham was to come to pass through the physical bloodline of
Abraham.
It also served a second purpose which demanded not only sep-
aration of Jews from Gentiles, but of the tribes of Israel from each
other as well. This was the “seed” promise made to Judah:
The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the

ruler’s staff from between his feet, until Shiloh
comes, and to him shall be the obedience of the
peoples (Gen. 49:10).
This famous prophecy indicated that the promised seed would

come not only through Abraham in general, but through Judah
specifically. It had to be kept separate, therefore.
There were yet other reasons to keep the tribes separate. The
tribe of Levi were separated for priestly and temple work. They
were separated by God Himself for special service in Israel.
There were a tremendous array of laws tied to these princi-
ples of separation: Jews were not allowed to marry Gentiles. The
tribes were generally not supposed to intermarry with each other.
All the laws of ritual separation fall under this category: the prohi-
bitions against mixed breeding of animals, mixed seeds planted in
the same field, and of wearing clothing made of a mixture of linen
and wool (Lev. 19:19); the laws pertaining to a male ejaculation
and those requiring a woman to separate herself during menstrua-
tion (Lev. 15); the laws of levirate marriage (Deut. 25:5–10).
Perhaps the ultimate law in this category was that of circum-
cision: it was a literal bloodline law which symbolized that the
seed was to pass through the blood, but also was a mark against
the flesh of human generation. This symbolized that the salvation
of God’s people would not come by man’s works or through man’s
product. It would come only by faith in God’s promise. Once that
salvation came in Christ, there was no longer need for this mark,
as Galatians argues so clearly.
Also part of the separation laws were all the laws tied to the
land of Israel. This was yet one more set of boundaries to keep
Israel separate from the nations and to keep the tribes separate
from each other until Christ would come. The allotment of the
land was by tribe and family, and it was to stay in the particular
tribe and family to which it was assigned (Num. 33:54; 36:5–9).
This allotment was performed faithfully by Joshua (Josh. 15–21).
The laws of inheritance kept the land within the family. The laws
for levirate marriage were designed to ensure that the family name
would continue in the land. The laws of redemption and especially
of Jubilee (Lev. 25) ensured that allotments would always eventu-
ally return to the original families.
In some cases, these laws were also intimately connected with
the priestly laws. For example, the laws of separation for quar-
antine (Lev. 14) and of ritual impurity (Lev. 15) required ritual
cleansings or sacrifices attended or performed by a priest. Like-
wise we can see composites of land law, bloodguilt, and priest-
hood tied together in the law of the corpse in open country (Deut.
21:1–9) and the laws for the cities of refuge (Num. 35:6–34).
Likewise, the laws of indentured servitude and lifetime slavery of
Gentiles were tied to the separation laws, Sabbath laws, and laws
of inheritance.
Repealed and replaced in Christ

All of these and many more like them were to last only until
the coming of Christ. They served their purpose of illustrating
principles of holiness in outward, earthly forms. These forms were
the schoolmaster, or guardian, imposed for a time until the prom-
ised seed should come.
Christ replaced the Old Testament priesthood. The entire tem-
ple, sacrificial, and sabbatical system is superseded by Christ. This
is the message of the book of Hebrews, as we have already seen.
Christ has fulfilled these in such a way as to bring about their ter-
minus, which God had always planned. Therefore, all of those laws,
and all of the laws and aspects of laws tied to them, are fulfilled and
their use discontinued. These shadows have vanished and passed
away (Heb. 8:13). The body of Christ is now the temple (1 Cor.
3:16; Eph. 2:19–22; 1 Pet. 2:4–10). Christ is now our Sabbath rest
(Heb. 3–4).
Christ likewise so fulfilled the separation laws tied to seeds
and bloodlines. These have reached their terminus in Christ also.
Inheritance of the promise is now no longer symbolized by cir-
cumcision and by the various laws pertaining to it in Moses, but
by baptism. This is what Paul teaches:
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ

have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek,
there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and
female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if
you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring,
heirs according to promise (Gal. 3:27–29).
Thus you can see also that all the “seed laws” of bloodlines and
physical separations are gone, as well as the types of inheritances
and slavery tied to them. Christ broke down the wall of partition
between Jews and gentiles and made the two into one new man
(Eph. 2:11–22). The separation now is between Christians and
non-Christians, and thus they are forbidden to intermarry or oth-
erwise be unequally yoked (2 Cor. 6:14–18).
We no longer enter covenant with God through bloodline
but by adoption. The sons of God are not physical sons, but
adopted sons, and Christ has been given the authority to make
them sons:
But to all who did receive him, who believed in

his name, he gave the right to become children
of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the
will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God
( John 1:12–13).
Likewise, Christ is the terminus of the land laws. He is the

fulfillment of Jubilee (Luke 4:16–21). God’s indwelling presence
is now in the hearts and bodies of Christians (1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19–
20; Eph. 2:19–22; 1 Pet. 2:5), not the building or the land. The
old boundaries of the land of Israel are no longer special bound-
aries of God’s judging presence. In the Old Covenant, the land
acted as an agent of God’s wrath. The people’s sins were counted
also to have made the land sin (Deut. 24:4). It would vomit out
the inhabitants for their disobedience (Lev. 18:25, 28; 20:22). The
function of judging in history and of “vomiting out” is now trans-
ferred to the enthroned Christ Himself (Rev. 3:16).
The focus of the people of God is no longer physical Jerusa-
lem, but heavenly (Gal. 4:21–31; Rev. 21:1–8). The land promise
of inheritance is also universalized. It now includes gentiles and it
now covers the whole earth. Christ received all power in heaven and
on earth (Matt. 28:18). The Psalms prophesied that the believers
would “inherit the earth” (Psa. 25:13; 37:9, 11, 22). Jesus affirmed
this by repeating it in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:5). Con-
sequently, He taught us to pray that God’s kingdom would come
and His will be done on earth (Matt. 6:10). Hebrews then tells us
that as believers, we have arrived at the inheritance: Mount Zion,
heavenly Jerusalem (Heb. 12:22–24). When Paul repeats the land
promise made to Abraham, he universalizes it:
For the promise to Abraham and his offspring

that he would be heir of the world [kosmos] did not
come through the law but through the righteous-
ness of faith (Rom. 4:13).
The inheritance of God’s people is no longer just a symbolic

strip between Egypt and the Euphrates River. It is now the earth,
the world.
Thus, even the aspects of the Ten Commandments which
were originally tied directly to the land then given to Israel are
universalized and generalized in the New Testament. Consider
the command to obey one’s parents:
Honor your father and your mother, that your

days may be long in the land that the LORD your
God is giving you (Ex. 20:12).
When Paul restates this in Ephesians, he leaves off the last

part of the promise which pertained specifically to the Jews:
“Honor your father and mother” (this is the first

commandment with a promise), “that it may go
well with you and that you may live long in the
land” (Eph. 6:2–3).
Keep in mind also that this commandment is here being

applied to that “one new man” Paul had just described earlier in
the same letter (Eph. 2:15)—made of both Jews and Gentiles.
In short, the New Testament teaches that all laws pertaining
to the Old Covenant priesthood, bloodline separations, and land
laws reached their terminus in Jesus Christ. They no longer con-
tinue in the New Testament.
The cherem principle

The principle of cherem (KHE-rum) is perhaps the most signifi-
cant aspect of discontinuity for our discussion. It is here, precisely,
where general statements about continuity lead to many raised eye-
brows: do you mean all those death penalties would be brought
back? For blasphemy? For apostasy? For idolatry? For adultery?
Ironically, even our best past authors have provided little direct dis-
cussion of modern application of these penalties, so this section of
this book may in fact be its most important contribution.
Cherem means “devoted” in the sense of devoted wholly unto
the Lord. In the instances most relevant to our discussion, it
means specially devoted to destruction. To be devoted unto the Lord
in this sense means to be separated from holiness of the Holy
Land and immediately into God’s holy presence for judgment.
This can refer to objects such as animals being devoted to the
Lord for sacrifice and given to the priests as their food and inheri-
tance, but even here the devoted animal was to be sacrificed. This
means its purpose was primarily as a substitutionary recipient of
God’s wrath. When in the context of a punishment for a crime
against God’s holiness (idolatry, paganism, etc.), it meant to be
put under the curse of immediate death. For this reason, cherem is
often referred to as “the ban” or, in its verb form, as a command to
“utterly destroy” or “devote to destruction” the person or objects.
Cherem is peculiar to the Old Testament administration
because it functioned only in the context where God’s presence
was in the physical temple/tabernacle, in the altar fire, the land
itself was holy and was an agent of sanctions, and the inheritance
of God’s covenant promises was through blood descent and exter-
nal possession of the Holy Land. As we have seen, all of these real-
ties have been drastically altered by the New Testament economy.
The civil penalties based upon the cherem principle must be con-
sidered in this light as well.
First, where in the Old Testament do we see this cherem prin-
ciple? It appears first in Exodus 22:20, although its meaning and
importance are made clearer in later verses. This first instance
says, “Whoever sacrifices to any god, other than the Lord alone,
shall be devoted to destruction.” Here the penalty of devotion
to destruction [cherem] is applied to false worship. Deuteronomy
elaborates on this particular crime:
If there is found among you, within any of your

towns that the LORD your God is giving you, a
man or woman who does what is evil in the sight
of the LORD your God, in transgressing his cove-
nant, and has gone and served other gods and wor-
shiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the
host of heaven, which I have forbidden, and it is
told you and you hear of it, then you shall inquire
diligently, and if it is true and certain that such
an abomination has been done in Israel, then you
shall bring out to your gates that man or woman
who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone
that man or woman to death with stones (Deut.
17:2–5).
If applied in New Covenant times, this law would seem to

require the death penalty for merely leaving the Christian faith. A
simple apostate would, under strict application of this passage, be
required to die at the hands of the State. There can be no doubt
this is what it meant for Old Testament Israel. Does it still abide
today? We will see in a moment.
Also subject to the direct judgment as cherem were the origi-
nal Canaanite tribes who were to be purged from the land. God
invokes the term cherem when describing both the people and their
idols (Deut. 7:2, 26) that should be utterly destroyed. He reiterates
this special devotion to destruction in the laws of warfare (Deut.
20:16–18). This inclusion is very helpful specifically because it was
special and not normal even for Old Testament Israel. In ordinary
warfare, rules for seeking peace, allowing tribute taxes, and pro-
tecting innocents apply. But in the Canaanite cities “devoted to
complete destruction,” nothing and no one was to be spared. This
distinction in the Mosaic law itself shows that there was a special
case already operative, and temporary, for those special commands
that God applied under the cherem principle: some laws were just
based upon the eye-for-an-eye rule (as we shall see); others were just
based upon God’s immediate judgment under cherem.
There are other instances of cherem that illustrate its distinc-
tiveness even more clearly. Numbers 21:1–3 relates how God
answered the Israelites’ prayer to place Arad, a Canaanite king,
under cherem.
And the LORD heeded the voice of Israel and

gave over the Canaanites, and they devoted them
and their cities to destruction. So the name of the
place was called Hormah.
Hormah is derived from the word cherem and thus means

“devoted.” In other words, the Israelites named this conquered
territory after the principle itself. It was a memorial to God’s
curse upon the Canaanites and the victory wrought thereby.
Similar stories are related concerning Sihon King of Hesh-
bon (Deut. 2:30–34) and Og King of Bashan (Deut. 3:1–6). Both
instances were not normal warfare, but rather warfare against
peoples who were devoted specially to destruction before the
Lord. Another instance appears in the destruction of Jericho. The
city and all its property were dedicated to the Lord for cherem
destruction. Achan violated cherem property and Israel suffer-
ing defeat for this (Josh. 7). Achan was ritually executed for his
offense. Also, Saul’s failure came in response to a special applica-
tion of cherem by God upon the Amalekites (1 Sam. 15). In each
case, there was a special (not normal) application of the death
penalty to unbelievers or apostates.
Another important instance of cherem is found in Deuteron-
omy 13. This case describes the destruction of even a Hebrew city
that is nevertheless led away by faithlessness or apostasy. Shall a
whole city be destroyed in modern times if it follows ungodly lead-
ers and departs from the faith?
This instance is helpful in that it further clarifies the nature
of cherem “devotion.” In this case, in Old Testament Israel, a city
had been led away by either false prophets or false worship (see
Deut. 13:1–17). In such a case, the whole city was to be devoted
and destroyed, including all the property within it. All the prop-
erty was to be burned specifically “as a whole burnt offering to
the Lord your God” (13:16). This detail is crucial. The “whole
burnt offering” is a reference to the ordinary substitutionary
sacrifice for atonement (Lev. 1:9, 13, 17). When that society
had rejected the true God, however, and started to worship false
gods, there remained no substitutionary sacrifice for them. The
penalty that would normally fall upon the substitutionary sacri-
fice would now fall upon them. They themselves were therefore
devoted to destruction: destroyed and burned for their apostasy.
Cherem in the New Testament

This principle is obviously continued in the New Testament,
but with the change in temple, priesthood, and land administra-
tion comes a transfer of the seat of judgment from the earthly land
to the heavenly throne of Christ. God’s consuming fire is no lon-
ger on earth in an altar. It was removed. Thus, the same principle
of apostasy can be declared in the New Testament, but the sanc-
tion is no longer by earthly civil government, it is from the throne
of Christ. In light of the change from shadow to substance (Heb.
10:1), the book of Hebrews makes this change fairly clear:
For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiv-

ing the knowledge of the truth, there no longer
remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expecta-
tion of judgment, and a fury of fire that will con-
sume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside
the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evi-
dence of two or three witnesses. How much worse
punishment, do you think, will be deserved by
the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of
God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant
by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the
Spirit of grace? (Heb. 10:26–29).
Keep in mind, the author was writing to Hebrews about the

change from Old Covenant to New Covenant under Christ. The
issue here would have been mass apostasy. The Hebrews who
remained in unbelief after Christ would have been committing
idolatry (false temple worship) and apostasy (denial that Christ
had come in the flesh). Under the Mosaic administration, they
would have been devoted to destruction (Ex. 22:20; Deut. 13;
17:2–5) by the civil government. The author of Hebrews acknowl-
edges this. Yet he does not prescribe a cherem death penalty admin-
istered by the civil government. He prescribes an even worse judg-
ment that will come from the throne of grace. This judgment fell,
in history, in God’s providence, in A.D. 70, when Jerusalem was
utterly destroyed in the greatest demonstration of cherem devo-
tion to destruction ever. This was carried out by God Himself
in history, not by human civil governments (although Rome was
used as God’s providential agent).
With the New Covenant, therefore, the cherem principle is
entirely changed. Its locus of authority has been removed from
earth to heaven. God no longer calls upon the civil government to
carry out cherem penalties. He still carries them out by punishing
societies for idolatry and apostasy, but He does so through Christ
and through the Holy Spirit.
Why this change? The discontinuity encountered in regards
to the cherem principle is directly related to the difference in nature
of the Old Covenant compared to the New. Just read God’s basic
description of the change:
For he finds fault with them when he says:

“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will establish a new covenant with the house
of Israel
and with the house of Judah,
not like the covenant that I made with their fathers
on the day when I took them by the hand to bring
them out of the land of Egypt.
For they did not continue in my covenant,
and so I showed no concern for them, declares the
Lord.
For this is the covenant that I will make with the
house of Israel
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws into their minds,
and write them on their hearts,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor
and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
for they shall all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
For I will be merciful toward their iniquities,
and I will remember their sins no more”
(Heb. 8:8–12; cp. Jer. 31:31–34; Heb. 10:15–18).
The New Covenant is said specifically to be “not like” the Old.

We know there are many differences already, but what is the fun-
damental difference in view here? The law continues, as we have
noted already, but it is now written on the minds and hearts of
God’s people, not merely on stones and books. It is that the New
Covenant is administered by the Spirit, from heaven, not from the
letter on earth. It is also marked by permanence: whereas the Isra-
elites broke the Old Covenant and God cast them away for it, this
New Covenant is wrought by God Himself in our hearts and can-
not be broken. It is also marked by general forgiveness as opposed
to the call for immediate cherem death.
Paul discusses the difference in precisely these terms:
And you show that you are a letter from Christ

delivered by us, written not with ink but with the
Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on
tablets of human hearts. Such is the confidence that
we have through Christ toward God. Not that
we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as
coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God,
who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a
new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For
the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 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 righteous-
ness must far exceed it in glory (2 Cor. 3:3–10).
This is hardly to say that the law in its entirety is brought to

an end, but to show the difference in the nature of the two cov-
enants and their administrations. The first was a ministry of the
letter and death, the latter a ministry of the Spirit and life.
Finally, we see this difference manifested in how the New
Testament applies the principle of cherem. We have already seen
it transferred from earth to heaven in Hebrews 10:26–29. We see
the same elsewhere as well. The word to look for is anathema. This
is the Greek word used to translate the Hebrew word cherem in
the Greek version of the Old Testament. Most of the passages we
have covered use this word in the Greek version (Lev. 27:28; Num.
21:3; Deut. 7:28; 13:16; 20:17; Josh. 7). Where it appears in the
New Testament, we should consider its equivalence. Sure enough,
where it appears, it generally refers to religious sanction (Rom.
9:3; 1 Cor. 12:3; 16:22; Gal. 1:8–9). Consider these two examples
that relate directly to the First Table of the law:
If anyone has no love for the Lord, let him be

accursed [anathema] (1 Cor. 16:22).
But even if we or an angel from heaven should

preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we
preached to you, let him be accursed [anathema].
As we have said before, so now I say again: If any-
one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the
one you received, let him be accursed [anathema]
(Gal. 1:8–9).
It is clear that Paul is still applying the cherem/anathema prin-
ciple in relation to First Table offenses, but the only sanction here
is ecclesiastical. This in itself does not prove that the civil penalties
no longer apply, but when taken together with the lessons from
Hebrews, the change in the nature of administration of the cov-
enants, and the transfer of temple/priesthood/land to Christ in
heaven, it is illustrative.
Which laws does cherem cover?

It is my conclusion that civil governments no longer have
authority to apply cherem punishments in the New Covenant. So,
which laws does this cover? In general, these are all First Table
offenses: false worship, apostasy, idolatry (Ex. 22:20; Deut. 13;
17:2–5). Further, there can no longer be any concept of holy war
(Deut. 20:16–18), but the general laws of warfare abide.
The cherem principle indicates that certain other death pen-
alties related to the First Table would also no longer apply. It
would include laws relating directly to inheritance in the land,
even when it crosses into family matters. This is why, for exam-
ple, the death penalty was required for incorrigible sons (Deut.
21:18–21). (While not traditionally considered so, the Fifth
Commandment is part of the First Table. It is a general principle
but was also directly tied to inheritance in the land.) Under Old
Testament law, a son would inherit the land by mandate, not by
choice of the parents. A rebellious, incorrigible son was therefore
a threat. His wicked influence and legacy was to be permanently
purged “from your midst” (21:21). (Note that this law is not said
to apply to daughters, who could be just as wicked and rebel-
lious, and just as incorrigible, yet could inherit the land only in
rare circumstances). While the word cherem is not used here, the
principle is the same. The evil son was devoted to destruction to
prevent the Holy Land and Holy people from being defiled. In
the New Testament, the land/seed/inheritance principles are all
superseded. While a general principle against incorrigibility in
regard to crime may still stand, the need to execute rebellious
sons in this way has passed away. In the New Covenant, the par-
ents can by decision simply disinherit him, shun him, and leave
him to God’s judgment.
The same would apply to the death penalty for an engaged
woman discovered not to have been a virgin before her wedding.
Such is not simply an extension of the laws against adultery. Her
crime is said to be that of “whoring in her father’s house” (Deut.
22:21). Whoredom in general received no civil government sanc-
tion at all in Old Testament law. Simple prostitution had no pen-
alty other than its own: social disgrace, lack of inheritance for her
children, lack of male protection, and bastardy of whatever sons
may be born. In this case, however, the daughter had presented
herself as a representative of her father, and of the heirs of her
future husband. Her whoredom could mean that a bastard would
inherit the land. This was an abomination in Old Testament Israel
because it profaned the seed and the land. The penalty here was
like a cherem penalty, even though the word cherem is not invoked.
Cherem and stoning

One way it becomes clear that these First Table offenses and
similar offenses are akin to, if not a part of, cherem law is by the
prescribed method of execution: stoning. Popular banter about
Old Testament law may lead you to think that stoning was pre-
scribed frequently as the default death penalty and for a wide vari-
ety of offenses. Whatever the source of this impression, however,
it is wrong. Sometimes the method of execution is prescribed: it
could be stoning, fire, hanging, or the sword. But the majority of
death penalties prescribe no particular form, only death. We can-
not take this for granted, as if God was random in giving such
specifications. We need to look and try to understand why some
are specified as opposed to others, and more importantly, what is
meant by the specified forms in their particular cases.
The cases specifying stoning are actually quite few:
• Molech worship, including the sacrifice of infants

(Lev. 20:2)
• False worship or apostasy (Deut. 13:6–11; 17:5)
• Spirit mediums (Lev. 20:27)
• Blasphemy (Lev. 24:10–16, 23)
• Sabbath-breaking (Num. 15:31–36)
• Incorrigible rebellious sons (Deut. 21:18–21)
• Engaged daughters committing whoredom in their
father’s house (Deut. 22:20–21)
• Fornication with an engaged daughter (Deut.
22:22–23).
In two other specific instances, the relationship between

God’s holy presence and the punishment of stoning is made
clearer. First, at Mt. Sinai, God set a boundary at the foot of the
mountain and forbid anyone to touch it upon pain of death. The
penalty: to be stoned with stones (Ex. 19:12–13). Secondly, for
Achan’s violation of cherem property, God prescribed death by
stoning (Josh. 7:25).
This is the full list of laws for which death by stoning is pre-
scribed. All of them have one thing in common: they are exclu-
sively First Table offenses, or are prescribed death because of an
overlap of a First Table principle.
While few may not seem like First Table offenses, remem-
ber that the honor of parents is a First Table offense. Likewise,
the treatment of daughters was directly tied to inheritance in the
land, not to mention a keen image of spiritual adultery often used
by God Himself (Jer. 3; Hos. 1; Rev. 17–18). The reason these
instances receive death by stoning is because they partake of First
Table principles. Other laws pertaining to sexuality do not nec-
essarily receive the death penalty, let alone stoning, and some are
not even punished by the civil government at all.
Why this connection between First Table offenses and ston-
ing? Because of the basic redemptive promise of God: to crush the
head of the serpent. The punishment of offenses against God Him-
self, therefore, was specially marked by crushing with stones—the
crushing of the head by stones cut out without hands. Stoning was,
therefore, a ceremonial aspect to the law. While there are judicial
aspects of it that continue—such as the need for involvement in
executions by the accusers themselves and by the community—
stoning itself was symbolic and is no longer binding.
Thus, even when the word cherem is not included in the Old
Testament passage, the presence of stoning as a punishment makes
clear that the principle is in effect. Cherem and stoning penalties
were reserved only for First Table offenses. Civil government no
longer has jurisdiction over First Table offenses. These punish-
ments, as regular mandatory punishments, are no longer in effect.
Only in extreme or aggravated cases in which blasphemy or false
worship aims to lead to revolution, sedition, terrorism, or treason
would civil government intervention be appropriate.
Sex and Land/Seed Laws

We cannot stress enough how intricately God’s cherem pres-
ence was tied to the priestly, temple, land, separation, and inher-
itance laws. We have already seen how they were tied together
with certain stoning penalties. There are other death penalties
involved in such overlap as well. These include the death penalty
for certain types of adultery (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22) as well as
bestiality and homosexual sodomy.
It is easy to conclude that all such sexual sins resulted in the
confusion or defilement of the seed, or the defilement of inheri-
tances, and were thus assigned the death penalty on such grounds—
not merely on the grounds of their nature as sexual sins. We can
tell in each of these cases that the death penalty was invoked not
because of the nature of the sin or crime itself, but because it
occurred in overlap with these particular sacred boundaries in the
Old Covenant administration.
First, this is clear in the fact that while there are numerous
detailed instances of such defilements specified (see Lev. 18; 20 for
just some examples), there are yet others which are conspicuously
absent. Consider, for example, the references to adultery just men-
tioned. One case involves a married man sleeping with a married
woman (Lev. 20:10). The other involves any man sleeping with a
married woman (Deut. 22:22). Each could receive the death pen-
alty. But what of a case between a married man and an unmarried
woman? There is no mention of it, although the law regularly spec-
ifies when any particular law applies to a man, a woman, or both.
The silence here is therefore evidence of a non-law. In fact, the law
allowed for more than one wife, and in the case of the Levirate
marriages (Deut. 25:5–6), a married man could be expected to go
in unto his deceased brother’s wife and cohabit. This was not only
not punishable by death, it was not even considered adultery. Why
not? Because in that Old Testament administration, the seed laws
and inheritance laws superseded sex and marriage law in terms of
the importance to the purpose of that system.
We know, again, that the Mosaic Covenant was added to
the promises of Abraham in order to ensure the promised seed
would come about as promised (Gal. 3:19). This temporary addi-
tion was also tempered “because of transgressions” (3:19). Jesus
makes it clear that divorce and remarriage is one area where such
was the case:
And Pharisees came up and in order to test him
asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”
He answered them, “What did Moses command
you?” They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a
certificate of divorce and to send her away.” And
Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of
heart he wrote you this commandment. But from
the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male
and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father
and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two
shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two
but one flesh. What therefore God has joined
together, let not man separate.”
And in the house the disciples asked him again

about this matter. And he said to them, “Whoever
divorces his wife and marries another commits
adultery against her, and if she divorces her hus-
band and marries another, she commits adultery”
(Mark. 10:2–12; emphasis added).
Notice two things. Jesus says that the original creation man-
date for marriage does not allow for divorce for just any old cause.
Deuteronomy 24:1–5 allowed men to do this to wives because of
hardness of heart. But this was obviously temporary. Divorce was
only originally allowed due to fornication. Secondly, Jesus applies
this principle to both wives and husbands. Both can now initiate a
lawful separation for lawful reasons.
Altogether this means that Jesus reinstated the original power
of marriage. Divorce for merely any old reason is now prohibited,
but the right of divorce is now equal between men and women.
The ramifications of this are profound. It is clear now that mar-
riage is no longer tied to the old seed laws and inheritance laws—
those being abolished. The fact that only certain cases of adultery
which violated those laws received the death penalty indicates that
the reason was not because of the adultery itself, but because of the
other violations. Further, the fact that the “adultery” of Polygamy
or Levirate marriage was not punished by death shows the same
principle. In the New Testament, however, the land/seed/inheri-
tance rules are gone, and thus so are the death penalties in regard to
sex and marriage that were bound to them. But the right of divorce
for infidelity is expanded and equalized to include women—which
is how it was originally designed. The changes were only for the
Mosaic period which was added “because of transgressions.”
What about sodomy? First note that this was a male-only
law as well (Lev. 18:22; 20:13). There was no civil law mention-
ing lesbian acts. Although surely a sin, it was no crime as was sod-
omy, and thus there was no penalty, let alone death. This alerts us
again that something more than just the homosexual sin was in
play. What is that issue? It pertained to the promised seed. There
was no greater purpose for the Mosaic Covenant than to guard
and protect the promise to Abraham until it came to pass. The
most important part of this promise was, of course, the promised
seed. In this light, the act of sodomy was not mere sexual per-
version, not even merely the height of sexual perversion. It was
open defiance of the natural use of sex through which the seed
was promised. It was a defiance of the created order, but of God’s
plan of redemption at that time. To engage in sodomy was there-
fore to deny Christ, and not only to deny him, but symbolically to
attempt to prevent His coming. To engage in sodomy was, there-
fore, not just a sexual sin but an act of blasphemy. (The same argu-
ment can be made for Onan, who refused to perform the duty of
Levirate marriage for Tamar—Gen. 38:8–10. The Lord punished
Onan with death, and the reason for it was directly connected to
refusing the seed.)
And what of bestiality? Unlike same-sex acts, this law spe-
cifically applied to both men and women (Ex. 22:19; Lev. 18:23;
20:15–16; Deut. 27:21), and both would receive the death pen-
alty. Interestingly, however, the beast was also assigned the death
penalty. This, again, suggests that there may be more being pun-
ished here than a mere sexual decision on the part of the person.
What could this be? It seems to me that the same principle as
with male sodomy is in play in either case. With a male zoophil-
iac, the parallel to a sodomite is clear enough. With a woman, the
crime lies but in entertaining foreign, animal seed. This is as great
a defiance of the promised Seed as the sodomite act, and thus was
to commit blasphemy as well. (It is not surprising that bestaility
was most commonly found in idolatrous rituals of Canaanite and
other ancient religions.)
While all of these sexual sins—adultery, sodomy, and bestial-
ity—remain abominable sins, with the coming of Christ and the
abolition of the Old Covenant administration, they can no longer
be said to be capital crimes. As revolting as any of them they may
be, the reasons they were earlier given the death penalty was not
merely sexual perversion, but for violating sacred boundaries that
at the time were placed under the jurisdiction of the civil govern-
ment. With these boundaries now removed, the civil government
no longer has authority to impose death.
In light of this, I have revised my earlier published views that
adultery and homosexual sodomy are punishable by the death
penalty. There are still, however, sanctions that can be imposed.
Divorce is obvious. This is covenantal death of family. It would
also possibly have some economic ramifications that would be
enforceable by the civil government. Covenantal death from the
church would also apply: excommunication. I also do not see why
local civil governments would not be warranted to punish flagrant
cases with loss of citizenship or banishment.
Fulfilled and forever
Yet, as we have seen, the New Testament also clearly states
that God’s law continues in the New Testament era. We have also
seen the relationship between love and law, as well as the place
Jesus gives to the teaching and upholding the law in the kingdom.
Jesus said He came to “fulfill” but not to “abolish” (Matt. 5:17)
the law. Some, we have now seen, were fulfilled and brought to a
terminus which was predetermined. These were fulfilled in such
a way that we no longer observe their earthly expressions. Oth-
ers, however, He has fulfilled in such a way that their observance
is expected and commanded. These He upholds as standards of
righteousness, love, and justice. Christians, therefore, need to
develop a view of the abiding validity of those standards of the law
that still apply.
We can develop this view simply by studying the law and
excluding those parts that the New Testament teaches no longer
continue. When we do this, we arrive at a distinction outlined
but earlier Reformed theologians. A second-generation Reformer,
Johannes Piscator, related his argument for the abiding validity of
the Mosaic judicial laws this way:
[T]he magistrate is obliged to those judicial laws

which teach concerning matters which are immu-
table and universally applicable to all nations,
but not to those which teach concerning matters
which are mutable and peculiar to the Jewish or
Israelite nations for the times when those govern-
ments remained in existence.
He then outlines briefly which is which:
Things common to all nations (that is, which

befall all) and are immutable with respect to their
own nature and merits are moral offenses, that is,
against the Decalogue, such as murder, adultery,
theft, seduction from the true God, blasphemy,
and smiting of parents.
Those laws which are mutable and which were

peculiar to the Jews for that time are things such
as the emancipation of Hebrew slaves in the sev-
enth year, Levirate marriage, releasing of debts in
the appointed year, marriage with a woman from
one’s own tribe, and if there were any other of
the same sort. Likewise, these include ceremonial
offenses such as touching a dead body, touching a
woman suffering her menstrual cycle, and others
of the same sort.
As you can see, his distinction is simple: that which is particu-

lar to the Jews, and that which is general for all nations and people.
His applications of that distinction are in line with what we have
studied regarding separation laws, Sabbath laws, land laws, etc.
Piscator’s distinction was picked up by some of the Puritan
theologians (such as William Perkins) and some of the West-
minster Divines (George Gillespie among them). They used the
traditional legal term “equity” to describe the application of laws.
They then discussed which parts of the law had “particular equity”
(applied to Israel only) and those that had “general equity.” They
did not all agree on which parts of the law fit into which category,
and debate ensued. When the Divines finished debating, they
settled on a compromise statement that left room for them all
to interpret the abiding validity of individual laws however they
chose. The Westminster Confession chapter 19 section 4 says,
To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry

judicial laws, which expired together with the State
of that people; not obliging under any now, further
than the general equity thereof may require.
This statement leaves it an open question as to exactly what
this “general equity” is and where and how it applies. Many theo-
logians have assumed it to mean some kind of spiritualized,
church-only application of these laws, but that any civil or state
application of them has expired. But this misunderstanding is
uninformed of the history behind the term “general equity.” It is
unfortunate, in fact, that the companion term “particular equity”
did not make it in to the Confession, but it does exist, and know-
ing its history changes the contextual meaning of the Confession’s
statement.
The “general equity” is not a spiritualized ecclesiastical appli-
cation of judicial law, but rather that part of the law that reveals
standards of righteousness, love, and justice not particular to
Israel only, but generally applicable to all of mankind—including
the civil state and civil justice. The Confession was written, how-
ever, as a compromise on this point, and its vagueness is therefore
unhelpful to understanding it. As history has moved on and the
historical context of the language was lost, the prevailing view of
our day has moved to impose its narrow and uninformed under-
standing upon language that was originally written to accommo-
date a spectrum of views.
The point here is not argue over the interpretation of the
Confession, for Scripture is our ultimate standard. The point is
to return to Piscator’s type of argumentation which was based
squarely on Scripture. That is why I have rehearsed the biblical
aspects of discontinuity of the law above. Once we get back to
these, we will naturally arrive back at the same distinctions of par-
ticular and general applications of the law. We will then read our
Confessions in that light, too.
Conclusion
We certainly do not have the space to review every law in
detail in order to say whether it continues or not (this book is just
an introduction, after all). Instead, you now have the categories
by which to discern for yourself. Read the law. In each case, ask
yourself: does this law, or part of it, pertain to the old temple rites,
calendar, priesthood, sacrifices, etc? Does this law pertain to the
old land boundaries? Does it pertain to the bloodline separations
or “seed” laws? Does it pertain to any of those aspects of the Old
covenant administration that the New Testament demonstrates
changed with Jesus? Does it pertain to First Table offenses, spe-
cial devotion to destruction, or stoning penalties? If so, that law,
or part of a law, is vanished away.
If not, then you can safely assume that law expresses an abid-
ing principle of righteousness, love, and justice. It will have appli-
cations to individuals, families, churches, and possibly even state
(assuming it is a state-focused law to begin with). You need to start
studying it in this light, asking questions, having discussions, and
applying it where you can. In doing so, you will be using the law
lawfully (1 Tim. 1:8).
I would, however, like to address a matter over which the Puri-
tans and Divines were divided: the penal sanctions of the judicial
laws. In the next chapter, I will give you my argument for why the
penal sanctions (excepting, of course, the ones already discussed
as discontinued in this chapter) are an aspect of the general equity
and remain obligatory for civil governments today.
4
The Abiding Judicial Standard
T heonomy’s most distinct aspect is its insistence that pun-

ishments for crime revealed in Old Testament law are
eternal standards of justice and remain binding today. Most other
views of Old Testament law either dismiss them entirely or rel-
egate them to a category of the law they say no longer applies in
the New Testament. In the last chapter, we discussed aspects of
the law that no longer apply, and others that do. In this chapter we
will show the moral principle behind the judicial penal sanctions
that do abide and why that principle demands that they must con-
tinue today as well.
Most Christians do not even consider the fact that Old Tes-
tament law provides a comprehensive system of justice including
criminal justice. This is perhaps owing to the fact that so many
dismiss the Old Testament as being fully replaced by the New.
But the New Testament addresses the Old Testament criminal
justice system, and it does so in glowing terms of commendation.
We have already seen how Paul explains its role in 1 Timothy 1:8–
11. We also noted where Hebrews says the Mosaic Law “proved
to be reliable,” and that by it “every transgression or disobedience
received a just retribution” (Heb. 2:1–2).
We need to pay close attention to this teaching. The book of
Hebrews is dedicated to proving that the New Covenant is supe-
rior to the Old in every way. It has a superior mediator, superior
70
The Abiding Judicial Standard 71
sacrifice, superior temple—it is superior in every way because of
Christ. Yet even though the book is filled with comparisons that
show the Old Testament system to be “obsolete,” “old,” and “ready
to vanish away” (Heb. 8:13), there is one aspect of the Old Testa-
ment it does not criticize but rather upholds, and that is the penal
sanctions. These it simply calls “ just” and warns its readers not to
drift away from it (Heb. 2:1). It should be clear from this that these
laws were not part of those intended to be replaced by the coming
of Christ. If there were any place in the Bible we would expect an
argument for the end of the Old Testament standards of justice,
it would be here in Hebrews. But instead we find just the oppo-
site: a statement supporting their abiding validity. If Hebrews says
we ought to pay close attention to these laws, I consider that an
exceedingly strong reason to pay close attention to them.
Indeed, we should pay close attention to the simple but pow-
erful description Hebrews gives to these penalties: “ just.” When
God provides standards of justice, we ought to be at pains to obey
them in our societies and governments. We should do so for one
simple reason: what God says is just is just, and any other standard
can only be unjust. Without obedience to God’s laws, our systems
of justice are not so much systems of justice as they are systems of
injustice.
This word “ just” demands our attention. The Greek word is
derived from the same word as “righteous.” It is not referring to
a particular instance or application of the law, but is describing
a quality of the judicial law. “Just” refers to a principle that runs
throughout the administration of God. His system of justice is
“ just” or “righteous” throughout.
The judicial laws are just altogether

For this reason, Psalm 19:9 says, “The judgments of the LORD
are true; they are righteous altogether” (NASB). The word “ judg-
ments” here refers to a particular aspect of God’s law. The law as
a whole is usually called torah in Hebrew, and the same word is
often used to refer any given “law.” Mitsvah is also a general term,
usually translated as “commandments.” The same is generally true
for the word mishmereth, usually translated “charge.” But there are
other words that usually refer to more specific aspects or perspec-
tives of the law. Chuqqah, for example, is often translated “statutes”
and usually refers to priestly ceremonies or rites. Another of this
type is what we find here in Psalm 19:9—mishpatim. This word
refers almost always to God’s law as applied in particular cases and
in concrete situations. In other words, it refers to judicial law. It is
best translated as “ judgments,” but is often found as “ordinances” or
“rules” in modern translations.
This view is confirmed when we simply study God’s law. The
Ten Commandments are given in Exodus 20. These are the foun-
dational principles of God’s law. They are summary principles of
law for all of life. As summary principles, they must be applied to
particular cases in real life. In the very next chapter of Exodus,
God begins giving us just such a series of concrete applications.
These laws span Exodus chapters 21–23, and we call them “case
laws,” “ judicial laws,” and sometimes “civil laws.” And what word
does God use for these laws? Exodus 21:1 reads, “Now these are
the judgments which thou shalt set before them” (KJV). The word
for “ judgments” here is mishpatim.
This is what makes Psalm 19:9 so interesting for our study.
Psalm 19 in general is a praise to God for His revelation to man
in both nature and Scripture. Verse 7 begins the section dedi-
cated to praising God’s written law. You will recognize some of
the words we have learned in it. Psalm 19:7–11 reads,
The law [torah] of the Lord is perfect,

reviving the soul;
the testimony of the Lord is sure,
making wise the simple;
the precepts of the Lord are right,
rejoicing the heart;
the commandment [mitzvah] of the Lord is pure,
enlightening the eyes;
the fear of the Lord is clean,
enduring forever;
the rules [or “judgments,” mishpatim] of the Lord
are true,
and righteous altogether.
More to be desired are they than gold,
even much fine gold;
sweeter also than honey
and drippings of the honeycomb.
Moreover, by them is your servant warned;
in keeping them there is great reward.
The Psalmist uses several different words to highlight aspects

of God’s law. Certainly some of this can be attributed to the nature
of poetry. But certainly, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,
this poet was not merely wielding poetic license or variety. When
it comes to God’s mishpatim, there is certainly a shade of meaning
intended to call to mind the heading of God’s case laws, Exodus
21:1, and certainly the description fits. God’s judicial law is true
and “righteous” (or “ just”) altogether—in its entirety.
The description is even more intense yet. The word “righteous”
in Psalm 19:9 is actually a verb: it means that God’s judicial law is
righteousness in action and that the justness of those laws is vindi-
cated whenever they are applied. It means that justice can prevail
in the land only when God’s judgments are obeyed and applied.
The Scriptural teaching, then, is that God’s judicial laws
are righteous and just altogether, and that every infraction was
assigned a “ just” penalty (Heb. 2:2). As far as our need to under-
stand God’s revealed system of justice, we could really stop here:
Scripture has spoken. There need be no other inquiry beyond this.
But God is gracious. He has not only given us bare fiat and com-
manded us to obey without understanding. He has given us a sys-
tem of justice composed of general laws (laws of love and the Ten
Commandments) as well as case examples of how to apply those
laws (judicial laws) so that they are applied justly. In other words,
He has given us a principle by which justice can be done in any
case, and this principle is directly revealed in the law and reflected
in every single law He revealed.
So what is this principle?
The moral principle for penal sanctions

Once we see the eternal moral principle running throughout
the law including the judicial laws and their penal sanctions, we
will better understand why those laws and sanctions are indeed
“ just” and why no other standard could be. So what is this prin-
ciple? Simple: it is traditionally called the lex talionis. It is stated
in the judicial law like this: “you shall pay life for life, eye for
eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn,
wound for wound, stripe for stripe” (Ex. 21:23–25). The principle
is repeated in Leviticus 24:24 and Deuteronomy 19:21.
The lex talionis is often misunderstood in a couple ways. First,
its name. It is often mistranslated as “the law of the talon.” Such
an unfortunate mistake perpetuates the popular misconception
that “an eye for an eye” is about personal revenge or physical vio-
lence, which is the second way it is misunderstood.
Let’s set the record straight. Lex talionis is not properly trans-
lated as “law of the talon,” but as “law of the talion.” “Talion” is a
legal term taken from the Latin word talis. It means “such” in the
sense of “same as.” A related English word derived from this is not
“talon” (which comes from a completely different derivation) but
“retaliate.” Even here, however, we must be careful, for we usually
use the word “retaliate” in terms of individuals retaliating. Instead,
we need to consider it in the sense of state-sanctioned restitution
or punishment that is precisely measured to match the severity of
the infraction or crime.
The lex talionis says essentially one thing: the punishment must
fit the crime—no more, no less. It is a rule that says justice must be
done in two ways: first, the crime should be punished, and second,
the state must administer punishment only to a requisite extent
and in a particular way proportionate to the crime.
This is not just one more law among others, but rather is a
principle of law that runs through all the others, much the same
as the principle of love summarizes the whole of the law. Lex talio-
nis is in itself the principle of justness, fairness, equity in redress
of injury or punishment of crime. But this means it is more than
any old judicial law allowed to be set aside in “more civilized” or
modern societies, or abrogated in New Testament times. It is, in
and of itself, the principle of justice. It is thus a moral and eternal
principle for all times and in all places.
Since this law is the revealed standard for restitution and pun-
ishment, we can only understand God’s own penal sanctions, as
revealed in the case laws, as perfect expressions of this principle.
God who is Himself just, and is the Author of both the principle
and the case applications of it, can do nothing other than provide
just punishments.
Anyone who wishes to deny these facts will find himself in
the unenviable position of arguing that at least some, if not all, of
God’s laws and prescribed sanctions are unjust and that man’s laws
are more just than God’s. If this were not absurd enough on the
face of it, such a proponent would then have to list for us which of
God’s punishments are unjust and why.
The lex talionis, then, is the moral element that exists in and
throughout the civil penal sanctions. It is the principle of justice.
But this means that the principle is eternal and thus abiding for
today. It also means that God’s penal sanctions, begin perfectly
just, must also abide today.
The Lex Talionis and the Ten Commandments

It is easy to see how directly this principle is related to what is
normally considered the core, if not the whole, of the moral law:
that is, the Ten Commandments. While perhaps not immediately
apparent, you only need to consider the role and behavior of the
state in punishing crime and it will become so. If the state pun-
ishes more than necessary, then it will by default be engaging in
theft, murder, false witness, or violence of its own—clear viola-
tions of moral law in the act of civil punishment.
For example, biblical law prescribes restitution for cases of
theft. The restitution must fit the crime. According to God, an
unrepentant thief who is caught with the stolen property in pos-
session is required to pay back double the value of the stolen prop-
erty (Ex. 22:4). If he repents, confesses, and returns the property
before he is caught, he is required to pay only the property plus
twenty percent (Lev. 6:4–5). In either case, the type of penalty
is restitution, and the amounts are set by God. Both the penalty
and the amounts are just by God’s determination. The principle is
clear: the issue is property and wealth, and the punish deals pro-
portionately with property and wealth. The restitution is in kind
because the property (or equal value thereof) must be restored.
The penal aspect is also in kind because it is equal also: the loss
that the thief intended to impose on the victim falls back upon
himself. Not only has he restored the property, he is required to
pay double, and thus ultimately loses the exact amount he inflicted
upon the victim. Further, the victim not only recovers his stolen
wealth, the double payment compensates for the lost time and use
of the original.
Compare this just system to non-biblical systems of justice.
For theft, the Quran prescribes the following: “As to the thief,
Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of
example, from Allah, for their crime” (5:38). Is this in any way
equitable to the crime? Perhaps only in an abstract symbolic way.
But in short, no. It is a barbarous punishment which does noth-
ing to recompense the victim of the theft, and imposes not only a
gruesome, violent punishment upon the thief, but also imposes a
lifetime disability. With this comes a lifetime economic reality:
the one-handed man will not only not be able to steal with that
hand again, he will also not be able to work or produce with it
for the rest of his life. It is not a stretch to say this punishment is
unjust by virtually every measure.
But compare also our own modern form of punishment.
American courts require restitution to be paid. That much is
good, although sometimes a judge may require only partial resti-
tution based on the convict’s ability to pay, and that is not biblical.
But then they add on top of this, too. Even for misdemeanor petty
theft and a first-time offense, in most states, a convict can expect
fines up to $500 or $1,000, and up to one year in jail. For felony
theft (usually over $1,000 of value) fines and jail time increase. In
serious cases of repeat offenders, fines can exceed $100,000 and
jail sentences up to 20 years. These fines are not paid to the victim
but to the state.
Is this a system in which the punishment fits the crime?
While it certainly is a lot better than chopping off people’s hands,
it is still not equitable. Imprisonment alone serves no good pur-
pose in such a case, and in fact often works against its purported
goal of “rehabilitation.” Often, petty criminals join gangs in prison
or associate with more hardened criminals. They leave prison a
greater threat to society than they entered. There is much more
we could say about this. In short, our modern penal system in
regard to theft does not measure up to God’s standards of justice.
It punishes more than is required and in ways that have little to no
bearing on the nature of the crime.
So what must we say about the state when it exacts more
than is fitting for the crime? If the exaction is in terms of money,
we must judge the state to be a thief also. In short, by violating
the lex talionis principle, the state ends up violating the moral
law of God—the law against stealing. If such an exaction is in
terms of prison time, however, the state is guilty of kidnapping.
If it is in terms of excessive force, the state is guilty of violence.
Applying this principle across the board, you can see how the
state can be guilty of virtually any of the moral laws of God, and
the most common reason for which it is guilty is by violating the
lex talionis.
The state, however, also must not punish less than the crime.
If it punishes less than is requisite, then it can be said to be com-
plicit to a certain degree, by its negligence, in the crime itself. If,
for example, it refused to impose full restitution in a case of theft,
the victim would not be made whole and his condition as a victim
would now be sealed by court order. Thus the court has become
complicit in the theft.
Likewise, in various ways, the state can be complicit in any
crime: sexual immorality, blasphemy, and much more. It can be a
tool to miscarry justice, and it can be a tool of envy and inequity.
It can be all these unjust things in the name of justice.
All of these things are either prevented or prohibited by the
judicial law of Moses in addition to the Ten Commandments of
the moral law, and yet they are nothing more than applications of
that moral law to the civil realm and the punishment of crime. All
of them can be summed up in the famous maxim, “Eye for an eye,
tooth for a tooth”—meaning, the punishment must always and
only be equitable to the crime.
When critics of Theonomy argue, therefore, that all or most
of the judicial penal sanctions in Moses law no longer apply, we
must appeal to the perfect justice of these laws, and particularly to
the fact that they all are based upon the justice principle of the lex
talionis. From the perspective of the perfect justice of Old Testa-
ment law, we have to ask the critics of Theonomy: in which of the
judicial laws of Moses did the punishment not fit the crime? We
can go further: in which did the penalty not fit the crime perfectly?
If you answer any positively, you call God unjust. But if you agree
they are just, and yet still say they no longer apply, then you are
saying justice is no longer obligatory for modern states. You have
unleashed a tyranny, or justified anarchy and lawlessness, as the
case may turn out to be.
Some objections answered

Understanding this principle and how it permeates the whole
judicial code will help us dissolve several points of opposition to
Theonomy. Let us look at a few.
First, someone versed in Scripture may notice that Jesus
referred specifically to the lex talionis in the Sermon on the Mount,
Matthew 5:38, and some will be quick to note that Jesus appears
to contradict it and replace it with a “turn the other cheek” prin-
ciple. He says,
You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye
and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say to you, Do not
resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you
on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And
if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let
him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces
you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to
the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the
one who would borrow from you (Matt. 5:38–42).
From this many Christians conclude that Jesus was replacing
the Old Testament teachings with his own kinder, gentler doc-
trines. But this is a common misunderstanding of the Sermon on
the Mount. Far from replacing the Old Testament law, Jesus said
He came specifically not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. He
said that anyone who does annul these laws would be called least
in His Kingdom, and whoever taught them would be called great
(Matt. 5:17–18). Jesus was therefore fulfilling the lex talionis.
What Jesus said next helps us understand what He was com-
municating in the Sermon on the Mount. He said, “unless your
righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will
not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:20 NASB). While this
verse contains quite a bit for discussion, one thing it suggests is
that Christ’s teaching of the law in the Sermon on the Mount is
to be seen in direct contrast to that of the Pharisees. Indeed, this
is exactly what we find. Every time Christ says, “You have heard
that it was said,” He is not contrasting the Old Testament with the
New. Rather, He was taking the false interpretations the Pharisees
and others had put upon Old Testament teaching and contrasting it
with the true meaning of the Old Testament law as the perfect law of
righteousness it was meant to be. The unbelieving Jewish leaders had
corrupted and twisted its meaning in various ways through their
oral traditions. Jesus was setting the record straight.
Thus, when we come to Matthew 5:38, Jesus is not replacing
the lex talionis, He is simply correcting an error of the unbelieving
teachers—namely, that the lex talionis could be applied to personal
vengeance. Jesus corrected this mistaken notion. Biblical law actu-
ally forbids private revenge. Instead, we should be willing to turn
the other cheek, and even submit to certain aspects of government
tyranny for the sake of love and peace. As a matter of fact, some of
Jesus’ points here (v. 42) were already taught in the Old Testament
anyway (Deut. 15:8; Psa. 37:21; 112:5; Prov. 21:26).
Instead of supporting private revenge, the lex talionis is actu-
ally a principle of justice to be applied through due process and a
proper jury trial. Far from condemning or replacing this founda-
tional standard of justice, Jesus was actually vindicating it from a
perverse use of it.
Second, critics of Theonomy sometimes respond that “of
course” even the Old Testament death penalties were “ just”
because, after all, all sins deserve death. Putting aside other aspects
of fallacy, this argument unwittingly calls into question the jus-
tice of all other penalties in the Mosaic law in which God did not
prescribe death. For example, if all sins deserve the death pen-
alty, then why not prescribe death for all infractions across the
board—false witness, theft, covetousness, etc.? The fact that God
instead prescribes restitution for theft should itself alert us to the
fact that in civil/judicial law, we are dealing with a different sphere
of jurisdiction and sanctions than God’s eternal judgment and
our justification before Him.
When we address judicial law, we are dealing instead with
God’s standards of material justice between men in history—and
that is distinct from the cosmic, theological nature of sin in God’s
eyes. When God prescribes something less than death for a cer-
tain crime, we must call that penalty just and not argue, or imply,
that in the civil realm it deserves death. To do so is to equivocate
on the meaning of the word “ just,” to confuse theological catego-
ries and, as a result, indulge in cruelty in the civil state. Indeed,
to follow the critics’ standard here would be to turn the state into
the most invasive, rabid, and bloodthirsty tyranny in history, pre-
pared to kill everyone for even the smallest covetousness, white lie,
slight, etc. No, when we talk about God’s standards of civil justice,
we are talking about something different—and as you can see, it
matters tremendously. When God does not prescribe death, but
something less, then we are not allowed to say that “death” in such
a case would be just. We must acknowledge that the lesser pen-
alty is indeed just because God has said so, and that nothing less
or nothing more can be said to fit the crime and thus to be just in
the civil realm.
On the other hand, when God does call for death—rapists,
murderers, kidnappers—and our society, times, or sentiments
desire something less, we must recognize that to apply some-
thing less is also to deny civil justice according to God’s standard.
Again, we are not allowed in this sphere to call such penalties just
only because all sins deserve death, but only because God has pre-
scribed death as a civil penalty in such a case. Nevertheless, we
must acknowledge that He does so and seek to obey his standards
in society.
On this point, we must always remember that all of these
applications are nothing more than deductions from that simple
principle of lex talionis: the punishment must fit the crime—no
more, no less.
Third, perhaps the most common objection is that while these
penalties may be considered God-breathed and “ just,” this was
only within the time and context of Old Testament Israel. Once
the New Testament has come, they are no longer necessary. God
could thus call for certain crimes to receive certain punishments
while His chosen nation was a geo-political reality. In this con-
text, certain penalties might have made sense. But now that the
New Testament has changed the nature of God’s people—they
are no longer a civil state unto themselves—God has also taken
away these laws as standards of civil justice. Thus, nations today
are free to use whatever standards they see fit for civil laws in gen-
eral, and penal sanctions in particular.
What this approach says is, in short, that God has changed
His standard of justice over time, or at the very least has decreed
that we live in a dispensation of time in which His standards of
justice need not be applied. That is to say, some level of injustice
is inevitable in this time, God’s OK with that, and we should
accept the inevitability, too.
While this line of reasoning is quite popular, I find it incoherent
and unacceptable. What we have seen with the lex talionis so far is
that it is an immutable moral principle of justice. What could make
justice change over time? What could make God Himself change
over time? It is true that God may change certain aspects of the
ceremonies or rites. He can also move jurisdiction for some sins as
we see with the cherem principle. But He could never change moral
principles that are grounded in His own nature: righteousness, just-
ness. Shall not the judge of all the earth, then, do right (Gen. 18:25)?
This is perfectly consistent with what we learned earlier regarding
categories of law: there are some aspects of judicial laws that were
expressions of the Old system. These we understand as pertaining
only to Old Testament Israel through its temple, land, priesthood,
etc. But there are also aspects of the judicial laws and punishments
which are basic and fundamental to crime and civil society in gen-
eral. These laws were always to be a standard upheld for all nations
to praise and from which to learn (Deut. 4:5–8). They were not
time-bound or nation-bound for Israel only; they are eternal moral
principles which abide everywhere. While the coming of Christ and
the New Covenant certainly get rid of the need for the rites and
ceremonies, it does nothing at all to diminish God’s standards of
justice and punishments that perfectly fit the crime according to
God. If anything, the coming of Christ and the universal scope of
the Great Commission strengthen the need for such standards, as
wickedness abounds in nations and governments around the world.
But what about when society grows more wicked? Could there
not be a need to impose stricter punishments in certain societies
due to a prevalence of particular sins?
Again, this does not make good sense. Just because a greater
number of people commit particular crimes does not entail that we
should increase the penalties for each individual instance. Biblical
lex talionis justice demands that we consistently punish the crime
in each case, but do so in a biblically-measured way. To exceed a fit
punishment would be to increase the level of wickedness and vio-
lence in society, but worse, to do so through the agency of the civil
state. What good does it do to meet injustice with state-sanctioned
injustice? Proverbs 28:2 says, “When a land transgresses, it has
many rulers.” This is a tragedy indeed. A tyranny can be spotted by
a burgeoning police state and a prevalence of bureaucrats, and usu-
ally wickedness lies at the root of that society. But even this proverb
does not necessitate an increase in the severity of penal sanctions. It
may be the case that such laws increase as well, but this would be a
description of the growth of wickedness, not a prescription by God
for how to deal with it. Severity should only increase with individu-
als who become repeat offenders, but this principle is built into the
law already to begin with.
In the end, the lex talionis prevails again. There is nothing in
changing times, histories, nations, people groups, social classes,
or circumstances that could ever necessitate a change in the prin-
ciple of the punishment fitting the crime. The moment we desire
more, we make the state a tyrant. The moment we desire less, we
make the state an accomplice to the criminals. This principle does
not change.
Conclusion
In this chapter, we have learned that God’s judicial law is alto-
gether just and righteous. We have learned that every one of his
penalties was just. Both Old and New Testaments teach this, and
even the book designated for demonstrating the superiority of the
New over the Old nevertheless maintains that the penal sanctions
remain just throughout.
We have learned, moreover, that there is an enduring, eternal
moral principle upon which the judicial code and its punishments
are based. This is the lex talionis. It requires that justice always be
served such that the punishments fit the nature and magnitude of
the crime. This principle, being moral and eternal, abides into the
New Testament era, for God cannot change His moral nature.
This means that the judicial laws and penal sanctions based upon
this principle must endure today as well.
In short, because of the principle of the lex talionis, the judi-
cial penal sanctions of Moses have abiding validity today as well.
Christians should promote them, pulpits should preach them
as standards for civil justice, and civil governments everywhere
should acknowledge the God of the Bible and submit to these
standards. Christians should desire a civil state that is limited
and bound by them.
5
What Society would Look Like
A properly theonomic society in terms of civil govern-

ment would be closer to classic libertarianism than
any other common political position. There would be differences,
of course, but in general, theonomic standards would simply
require a radical reduction in the size and scope of civil govern-
ment. It would require a stronger sense of law being a restraint
upon government rather than a burden imposed by it. It would
include a radical reorientation from a powerful centralized gov-
ernment exemplary of a police state back to a free, largely volun-
teer-based focus on local community.
We noted earlier where Hebrews says the Mosaic Law “proved
to be reliable,” and that by it “every transgression or disobedience
received a just retribution” (Heb. 2:1–2). This means that the sys-
tem of justice laid out in that law was perfectly just. The author of
Hebrews then immediately adds that we should “pay much closer
attention to what we have heard, lest we should drift away from it”
(Heb. 2:1–2). This was certainly excellent advice for the author’s
audience, which was about to experience God’s wrath poured out
upon Jerusalem (A.D. 70) for its apostasy. But it is excellent advice
for us today as well. We need to pay much closer attention to the
abiding system of justice laid out in Old Testament law. We have
certainly drifted far away from it, and the consequences for us
have been stark.
86
What It would Look Like 87
. . . in which righteousness dwells

Two passages from Isaiah give us the imagery for a starting
point perhaps better than any others. Both describe an ideal theo-
nomic society, although in different degrees and perspectives:
It shall come to pass in the latter days

that the mountain of the house of the LORD
shall be established as the highest of the moun-
tains,
and shall be lifted up above the hills;
and all the nations shall flow to it,
and many peoples shall come, and say:
“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
to the house of the God of Jacob,
that he may teach us his ways
and that we may walk in his paths.”
For out of Zion shall go the law,
and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
He shall judge between the nations,
and shall decide disputes for many peoples;
and they shall beat their swords into plowshares,
and their spears into pruning hooks;
nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war anymore
(Isa. 2:2–4).
This is a vision of world justice and peace. It is founded upon

God’s law. That law reaches all nations. The spread of that law
will involve many court cases and settlements, perhaps even
internationally, but will lead to peace. Not only will peace reign,
but all military-industrial complexes will be abolished. They will
be transformed into agricultural science and productive technol-
ogy of all forms. Botany, husbandry, and food production will
advance in all ways. Nations will no longer devote such tremen-
dous resources to “learn war.” All the time, energy, and money
sunk into militarism will be transferred to more productive
areas.
Isaiah elaborates more later:
For behold, I create new heavens

and a new earth, . . .
No more shall there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,
or an old man who does not fill out his days,
for the young man shall die a hundred years old,
and the sinner a hundred years old shall be
accursed.
They shall build houses and inhabit them;
they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
They shall not build and another inhabit;
they shall not plant and another eat;
for like the days of a tree shall the days of my peo-
ple be,
and my chosen shall long enjoy the work of
their hands.
They shall not labor in vain
or bear children for calamity,
for they shall be the offspring of the blessed of the
LORD,
and their descendants with them.
Before they call I will answer;
while they are yet speaking I will hear.
The wolf and the lamb shall graze together;
the lion shall eat straw like the ox,
and dust shall be the serpent’s food.
They shall not hurt or destroy
in all my holy mountain,”
says the LORD (Isa. 65:17–25).
This expands upon the earlier vision of world peace and pros-
perity. Now we have a great vision not only of peace, but of longev-
ity. We also have promises of successful business and labor, and
great respect for property. There will be no taxation or socialism:
“they shall not plant and another eat.” The state will not steal and
give to others.
These two visions alone help get us started answering the
question of what a theonomic state would look like. It would not
only be about changes in law and politics. It would include longer-
term social and cultural improvement. This means that in trying
to develop a vision of Theonomy, we are simultaneously develop-
ing a grand vision of liberty and peace. Let’s not be naïve, how-
ever. Such liberty and peace are built upon the most fundamental
aspect of government: self-government. Without the self-govern-
ment of the Christian person, there can ultimately be no liberty or
prosperity. Thus, the civil applications of God’s law are secondary,
or at least only complimentary, to the vital need for the individual
conversion of the soul to Christ, and the self-government under
God’s law that follows. These are the fundamental elements of
Christian culture.
With such Christian self-government and self-consciousness
more widespread, we could begin to start expecting changes in
civil law and government as well.
Christian freedom
For starters, the religious foundations of social order would
be protected. Christians of all denominations could flourish. Reli-
gious liberty would be protected. Those who do not wish to wor-
ship Christ may hold private opinions and even practice other
religions. Freedoms of assembly and speech would continue, and
public debate and dissent would certainly be tolerated. Only pur-
poseful, open disgrace and defiance would be prohibited. Trai-
tors and revolutionaries would be banished or even executed in
extreme cases.
The civil government would be greatly decentralized and in
all cases itself subject to the rule of law. It would be greatly lim-
ited in its scope and focus, its budget and treasury, and the nature
of its army (Deut. 17:14–20). It would dare not undertake any
measure of war without prayer and assurance of a just cause, and
would always exhaust every effort for peace first. This would for-
bid entanglements through international alliances, epsecially with
anti-Christian nations (Ex. 23:32; 34:15–16).
No one could be forced to work on Sunday or fired for refus-
ing to do so in most cases (Ex. 20:8–11; 23:13; Lev. 23:3).
Family authority
Parental authority would be upheld by the civil government
and its discipline honored. Those who attack parents have com-
mitted more than simple assault and battery, they have attacked
the foundation of social authority itself. They could be subject to
punishment, though the death penalty is now commuted to exile
(Ex. 21:15, 17; Lev. 20:9; Deut. 21:18–21). This law is not applied
to children. Jesus upheld this law (Matt. 15:1–9; Mark 7:1–13) and
applied it to adults who curse their parents (see Mark 7:11—“a
man”). On this principle, incorrigible criminals can earn the death
penalty as well, and others lose the right to vote.
Government agencies such as Child Protective Services or
Departments of Family Services would be abolished or stripped
of power to remove children, divide families, or otherwise impose
penal actions through civil or administrative courts. All govern-
ment Departments of Education would be abolished, all govern-
ment schools privatized, and the primary responsibility for edu-
cation would return to the family. Home and private education
would reflect the worldview of the parents, and thus would nor-
mally be explicitly Christian and express God’s foundations of
social order (Deut. 6:7–9; 11:19–21). Property taxes would be
eliminated, freeing citizens and families from the socialistic bur-
den of financing the educations of other people’s children, and
destroying the government’s stranglehold over both property and
education—a powerful tool of liberal activists and statists. Chris-
tians would be freed politically, religiously, and financially to edu-
cate their own children at their own expense and to the glory of
God. Business, technical, and trade education would flourish.
Ridiculous degrees in feminist studies and other fringe liberal
arts propped up today only by enormous government subsidies
would largely disappear.
The principle of honoring parents extends in certain ways to
other positions of honor or authority. Cursing (not merely criti-
cizing or challenging) government officials or other authorities is
prohibited (Ex. 22:28). The most common relic of this principle
used today is the crime of contempt of court, though it may often
be abused. Still formally on the books are censures for things like
contempt of Congress also. This legacy would continue, be more
formalized, and taught. It will be expected for people to honor the
aged and elders in general as well (Lev. 19:32). Judges and govern-
ment officials, however, will themselves be held to strict standards
of law and righteousness (Deut. 16:18): grievances will certainly
be petitioned for redress, and all government agents (the few there
would be) held accountable.
Thus parents and authority in general are protected from
abuse. This is not because they are perfect, but because they are
not. Even imperfect authority, however, is preferable to revolution
and anarchy. These laws protect the social order itself.
Life and Liberty
Life would have its utmost protection in a theonomic state. It
would be protected both by the state and from the state. Murder-
ers would be executed (Ex. 21:12–14, 18–25; Lev. 24:17, 19–22).
Children in the womb would be protected as living persons. Any-
one causing injury to an unborn child would be liable for damages
(Ex. 21:22–25). Anyone willfully or through criminal negligence
causing the death of an unborn child would be considered a mur-
derer and subject to the death penalty. Abortion would, therefore,
be strictly outlawed.
People would be strictly liable for the safety of others on their
property. Those found negligent would be strictly liable for dam-
ages up to and including criminal negligence for life (Ex. 21:29–36;
Deut. 22:8). Pets or livestock known to be a threat to life must be
controlled as such. If one should cause injury, damages, or death,
the owner could be held liable for all damages up to the death pen-
alty (Ex. 21:29–30). The principle of liability in general, and for life
in particular, certainly would extend to factory conditions, work-
places, businesses open to the public, machinery, and more.
Under biblical law, freedom is an aspect of life. While a reha-
bilitaional form of servitude would exist, the type of chattel (own-
ership) slavery practiced in the American South would never have
existed. Kidnapping, human trafficking, and slave trading all would
be punishable by death (Ex. 21:16; Deut. 24:7). Likewise, terrorists,
hijackers, all hostage-takers, and carjackers who hold people against
their will. The slave traders of the Old South (and other places)
would have been executed for their crimes. Likewise, the Fugi-
tive Slave Act would never have been allowed. Slaves escaped from
unbiblical jurisdictions would never be returned to their enslavers,
but given refuge, freedom, and protection of law, and treated like
every other citizen (Deut. 23:15–16). Refugees of war or tyranny
would receive similar protections.
By these same life-freedom laws, citizens and families would
be protected from the state itself. Government agents who seize
children from parents, or who otherwise make false arrests or
false imprisonments, could be held liable under laws against
kidnapping. Police abuse would disappear as such accountabil-
ity increased. The privacy of the home would be inviolate (Deut.
24:10–11). A man’s home is his castle, and the castle doctrine
would return to its earlier strength, uncompromised by loopholes
created by the Supreme Court.
Further, life is protected against malicious witness and
fraudulent prosecution. Corrupt individuals who wish to harm
others under the color of law will nevertheless meet several hin-
drances. Two or three witness are required to bring any con-
viction (Deut. 17:6; 19:15). Upon any conviction, the accus-
ers themselves must be the first among parties to an execution
(Deut. 13:9; 17:7). Malicious witnesses, however, when discov-
ered, will receive for themselves whatever penalty they wished to
execute upon the falsely accused, up to the death penalty (Deut.
19:16–21). This would create a powerful deterrent, which is
non-existent today, against false accusations and false prosecu-
tions. Government officials will be held to the same standards
as everyone else. Prosecutorial and police immunities would be
greatly curtailed if not eliminated.
The laws of warfare maximize the protection of life even during
the tragic event of war. Standing armies and military drafts are out-
lawed. Militias could only be mustered in response to an imminent
threat or attack from an enemy. The law provides several exceptions
to militia service, including an exception for those who are merely
fearful. Anyone perceiving any particular cause to be unjust, and
thus anticipating God’s judgment, could decline to serve. This and
all other exceptions would not only save conscientious and innocent
lives, but would discourage unjust wars. Such conscientious objec-
tion would also be considered socially acceptable and even laudable.
Only after briefing and allowance for these exceptions would offi-
cers be appointed. War proceeds first with attempts at negotiation
for peace. If the aggressor refuses peace, war may ensue, but only
against military targets. Militias may not target innocents or food
or water sources. Upon victory, the nation may extract the costs
of warfare from the defeated aggressor (Deut. 20). This means no
more lasting debts due to wars, and no more tax increases or infla-
tion to pay for them.
In short, all attempts are made to spare innocent or consci-
entious life, and warfare is only conducted to repel invaders or
attacks. Such laws also entail a foreign policy of non-intervention
in general. A theonomic state does not police the world looking
for monsters to destroy.
Marriage
The government would have little to do with sex or marriage.
The state would no longer issue marriage licenses. Marriages
would be treated as private contracts. Divorces would be handled
through private or church courts. Civil government would only
enter the picture if necessary to enforce terms of divorce. The
integrity of the marriage bed is protected against all forms of incest
(Lev. 18:1–18, 20, 22–24). Homosexual marriage would not be a
civil right (Lev. 20:13). Businesses could not be required to cater
to homosexual celebrations, pretend weddings. Sexual acts with
animals could be grounds for punishment (Ex. 22:19; Lev. 18:23;
20:15–16). Transvestitism, pornography, public nudity or inde-
cency, and prostitution would all be shunned (Lev. 19:29; Deut.
22:5; 23:17). Certainly no government could require businesses or
individuals to treat transgenders according to their chosen non-
gender upon pain of fines or imprisonment. No-fault divorce and
easy divorce would be abolished.
Overall, biblical law aims to uphold the biblical family unit—
one man, one woman—and to abhor those forms of perversion
that threaten its integrity or stability. There are a significant num-
ber of moral laws pertaining to sex and marriage, but few remain
with civil government sanction.
Property
Some of the most profound improvements would be seen in
the areas of property and contracts. First, private property would
be a sacred right which would remain inviolate from neighbor,
state, and enemy alike.
Punishments for theft would be far more just than our prison
system today. In general, the penalty for a convicted thief is resti-
tution. A prison sentence in this light must be considered wholly
pagan, unbiblical, and cruel. There is only a slight shade of com-
parison to what could occur under biblical law, and we’ll cover that
in a minute.
More specifically, the standard punishment for theft is double
restitution (Ex. 22:4) if the property is recovered. This involves
one times the value for replacement of the stolen property, and
a second times value as a punitive measure (thus the thief loses
exactly what he sought to gain from his victim). If the property
is not recovered, the restitution will include any lost production
value—four or five times, or possibly more (Ex. 22:1; Prov. 6:30–
31). In the rare case a thief comes to his senses and returns the
property before he is caught, he is liable only for full restitution
plus twenty percent (Lev. 6:1–5).
Thieves who break in during the night or whose actions are
otherwise perceived to be life-threatening may be killed in self-
defense or home-defense without guilt (Ex. 22:2), but even the
lives of thieves are protected when it is clear they are not a threat
to life (Ex. 22:3).
What happens if a thief steals only because he is poor and
needs only to eat? Even then, Solomon says, restitution must be
paid (Prov. 6:30–31). But what if he has no money to pay what is
required? This is where the nearest thing to prison—and I hesi-
tate even to place it in the same sentence as that word—appears.
It is indentured servitude, often simply translated “slavery” in the
Old Testament. The laws for restitution for theft clearly say that if
he cannot pay, “he shall be sold for his theft” (Ex. 22:3).
Before we recoil at the thought of modern-day “slavery,” let us
stop and consider a couple things. Biblical “slavery” is not slavery
in any sense we have understood the word in American history. It
is not ownership of a person, has nothing to do with race, protects
the rights of the servant, and imposes specific checks and duties
upon the custodian. The modern prison system is far closer to
American slavery than anything discussed in the Bible. It is this
to which we should direct our revulsion.
Modern prisons involve mass incarceration with chains, cages,
mass strip searches, mass nudity, gang violence, fights, apathy, hap-
lessness, loneliness, depression, mental illness, waste, sodomy, ram-
pant masturbation, corrupt guards, drug trades (yes, even inside the
prisons!), and much more. When a prisoner leaves, he is often a far
more hardened criminal, and with more criminal gang connections,
than before.
The biblical system, on the other hand, places applicable con-
victs in truly correctional or rehabilitation programs under cus-
todians (“masters”). They are designed for training in work, disci-
pline, skill, self-confidence, morality, productivity, and community.
Private programs similar to this description (though they are few)
have far greater success rates than prisons, and prevent recidivism at
much higher rates as well.
Under biblical servitude, custodians do have a right to corpo-
ral punishment (just as civil governments in general do—Deut.
25:1–3—and parents as well), but are held to strict standards of
liability. If a scourging leads to an injury, medical care is the mas-
ter’s duty and the convict’s right. Any permanent injury, even as
slight as a tooth, results in the servant’s freedom from their bonds.
When a term of servitude is over, the custodian is required to sup-
ply the servant with capital for his future (Deut. 15:12–18).
Biblical penal servitude is similar to modern probation in
some ways. Probation involves the loss of certain rights, includ-
ing the right to bear arms, the right to be secure against unreason-
able searches and seizures, freedom to travel, the right to serve on a
jury, and even the right to vote. The biblical model may or may not
include some such things, but it would focus on the more beneficial
aspects of training for work, social skills, etc., not provided under
standard probation.
Governments must enforce just weights and measures. Cheat-
ers, whether individual, corporate, or governmental, must be con-
victed as thieves and pay restitution. Governments and banks,
especially, may not inflate currency (Deut. 25:13–16). This stan-
dard forbids all forms of bribery and lobbying government offi-
cials. It also outlaws all forms of government-funded welfare,
including corporate welfare. Government confiscation schemes
based in “asset forfeiture” laws would be abolished.
All government taxation is theft, and thus, all government-
backed redistributions of wealth based in taxation are outlawed.
This includes property tax (real and personal), sales tax, income
tax, payroll taxes (social security and Medicare), import and
export tariffs, transportation and gas tax, all excise taxes, so-
called “sin taxes” on tobacco and alcohol, poll taxes, luxury taxes,
ad valorem taxes, all license fees and other fees, and value-added
tax schemes. And all others. All of them. Gone.
All public services would be privatized and be better off for it.
Police, fire, EMT, 9-11 services, roads, bridges, libraries, civic cen-
ters, and even hospitals would be either privately funded services,
or else donor-based charitable services.
Immigration would be no problem in such a society because
all property would be private. There would be no government-
owned property, roads, or borders in need of government agents
to patrol or build a wall. Private property owners would be in full
charge of whom they let on their property, or not, with the right of
home defense against intruders. Further, there would be no wel-
fare benefits to incentivize or reward interlopers who wish to seize
amnesty even if they would be unwelcomed. In light of this, the
immigrant population would be made of only welcomed and/or
hardworking guests.
Honesty
Like property, contracts would be strictly enforced. The state
is charged with enforcing contracts, and with punishing those
who harm others via slander or libel, false accusation, or who per-
vert justice through perjury, peer pressure, conspiracy, discrimi-
nation, class warfare, or bribery (Ex. 23:1–9). Further, the reputa-
tions of individuals and businesses would be protected from dam-
ages inflicted by slander or libel.
The final decision in any case would fall to juries. Juries would
be fully informed of their right to decide not only facts but the
nature and applicability of the law also. Judges would no longer be
allowed to lie to juries concerning these rights, nor intimidate them
in any way. Innocence must always be presumed and the burden of
proof lay upon the prosecution. Great care must be taken to avoid
ever convicting the innocent or righteous (Ex. 23:7).
Covetousness
Finally, covetousness in itself is not punishable by the state, but
it is to be forbidden to manifest in the form of the politics of guilt
and pity. People who may grow jealous of their neighbors’ wealth
or success will not be allowed to engage in political class warfare in
an effort to start government welfare programs. This also exposes
the root of such political programs focusing on “income inequal-
ity,” “the rich,” “the one percent,” etc. The commandment is also
helpful in confirming that property is primarily to be owned by
individuals (“your neighbor”), not the state.
Yet, as society was allowed to operate freely, and the free mar-
ket unleashed to address its needs and demands, collective wealth
would grow. This has been demonstrated everywhere it has been
tried: wealth inequality may grow, but the collective grows as a
whole with it, and the poorest are always better off than under
systems based on covetousness. In a sense, by seeking the King-
dom of God and its righteousness (law) first, all these things are
afterward added unto you.
Many biblical laws which still abide are not “civil” laws—they
lack any sanction for the civil government to carry out. They are
still, however, social laws which Christ Himself judges in his-
tory. If and when the people refuse to carry out such laws like
sexual purity, right worship, and care for the poor, Christ Himself
will predictably bring judgment upon that nation (Lev. 20:1–5,
6, 22–24; 26; Num. 33:55–56; Deut. 12:29–31; 28–29; Jonah).
Likewise, if the nation adopts the ways of pagan nations around
it, God still brings judgment in history.
Conclusion
The biblical vision of a godly society is much richer and
broader in scope that many people imagine even heaven to be. It is
life lived to its fullest and at its freest. It is love in action: the love
of God and love of neighbor. Biblical law shows us the bounds of
love, and these bounds are peace, liberty, justice, and the prosper-
ity that flows from these.
It is not hard to see that our society is far from this ideal in
many ways, but that is no reason for despair. There are many ways
in which we can be working towards our goals in the meantime.
The vastness of liberty and great amount of widespread self-gov-
ernment required to make it work certainly seem like an intimi-
dating challenge from our vantage point, but it is the vision and
law given us in Scripture, and Christians are to embrace it in faith.
We are to live it out to the greatest extent we can, and promote it
among the nations, including our own time and place. We are to
be faithful to the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18–20) trusting
God that He shall bring it to full victory. In the next chapter, we
will discuss how this vision will come to pass.
6
How it will Come to Pass
N ow that we have the beginnings of a vision of what a the-

onomic society would look like, we need to discuss how
such a society will come to pass. This discussion is further nec-
essary since the practical advent of theonomic society has often
been mischaracterized through ignorance, careless assumption,
and even malice.
This discussion will immediately invoke debates over escha-
tology. I will not go into those in detail in this book.1 There are
many who may believe that something like my description in the
last chapter will come to pass, but only after Christ returns. I do
not believe this. I believe Christ is currently ruling both heaven and
earth (Matt. 28:18) from His heavenly throne, presiding over the
Great Commission, and will not return until all of His enemies,
including death, are first destroyed (1 Cor. 15:25–26; Heb. 10:12–
13). But even many of those who believe that the success of the
vision will occur only after Christ returns still feel the burden for
obeying Christ’s law here and now as much as possible. Even some
premillennialists have contacted me saying they believe in fighting
for the faith in every area of life now, and thus engaging in proj-
ects or activism to develop theonomic foundations for when Christ
1. See my Jesus v. Jerusalem: A Commentary on Luke 9:51–20:26, Jesus’
Lawsuit Against Israel (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision Press, 2011)
for my contribution to the preterist and postmillennial arguments so far.
101
does return. This chapter will proceed upon the assumptions of my
eschatology, but will also be helpful to those of all eschatological
persuasions who nevertheless think we should work for social ethics
which glorify God even in the meantime.
When we are discussing the vision of what society would look
like, we are speaking of the nature of social order. When we switch
to the topic of how such a social order will come to pass, we are
discussing the nature of social change. What are the biblical ele-
ments of social change? While this question deserves a treatise of
its own, I will discuss in summary the basic two elements that
make up the New Testament program of social change: the Great
Commission and the power of the Holy Spirit.
The Spirit and the Great Commission

Godly social change in the New Testament comes from the
advance of the Great Commission given by Christ, and this suc-
ceeds only according to the work of the Holy Spirit. Both are
dependent upon each other, and both are necessary.
The Great Commission

The foundational impetus for Christian evangelism is the
command of Christ given after His resurrection and prior to His
ascension. We rightfully call this the “Great Commission.”
And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority

in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go
therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptiz-
ing them in the name of the Father and of the Son
and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe
all that I have commanded you. And behold, I
am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matt.
28:18–20).
How it will Come to Pass 103
First, there is a lot we can learn from this passage, but the most
relevant aspect for our purposes is the full nature and scope of the
mandate. According to Christ, disciple-making involves more than
just “soul winning.” It is about more than preaching about “getting
saved.” We are to aim at more than that beginning part of Christ’s
message that saves the soul. Rather, we are to train the nations to
“observe”—that is, “obey”—all that Jesus has commanded us. This
includes all of God’s word: not just the portion that speaks of the
souls of men, but also the vast majority which teaches the law and
its application for living, rearing families, self-improvement, doing
business, running governments, etc.
For the abiding content of that law and its application, you can
begin with the previous chapters of this book. But the relevant part
here is the dire need to incorporate this content into our missionary
activity. It is not anywhere near adequate, in light of Christ’s words
here, to make a handful of converts without consequently teach-
ing them the law, its social applications, and training preachers to
address the whole of their society with that full message. To do
so may prompt one with our contemporary mindset to boast that
converting the soul is what matters most, and that devoting the
entirety of one’s life even to save a single soul is “worth it.” But this
is hardly faithful to Christ’s vision and commandment, in the view
of which it seems quite timid, wasteful, and disobedient—much
like the sad figure who buried his talent and was reprimanded by
his Lord for doing so (Matt. 25:14–30). This is especially appli-
cable when we collect millions of dollars to send out missionaries
who live in disproportionately comfortable social conditions com-
pared to the tribes they attempt to reach, and after a coupe decades
claim only a handful of souls as converts. Instead, all of our mis-
sionary activity ought to address the full scope of Christ’s com-
mandments, all of His law, and it should teach and train others to
do so as well (Matt. 5:19).
Secondly, while this commission may often proceed by
addressing individuals, its goal is to change entire nations. The
text does not say “make disciples from among (or within, or out
of) the nations.” The Greek literally translates as an imperative
command to “disciple all the nations” themselves. The outlook of
the Great Commission, therefore, is not individuals but corporate
bodies, and all of them. Certainly, as we said, we must proceed
toward this goal by saving individuals, but the end-goal is cor-
porate, national, and universal. The greatness of the Great Com-
mission does not lie in what it commands, but in what it prom-
ises. Christians should focus on the scope of what it promises, and
engage in missions accordingly.
By the Holy Spirit

We must also emphasize that any degree of theonomic soci-
ety will only come to pass to the degree that the Holy Spirit has
worked among a significant portion of that people. This has mul-
tiple facets as well.
First, the dynamic power behind any Christian social change
is the Holy Spirit, not man. When we speak of obedience to God’s
laws in real time history, we are speaking of our sanctification. We
are speaking of the degree to which our desires and actions accord
with God’s standards, especially as compared with the former
times of our ignorance or unbelief in which we not only did not
obey God but did not care. The difference in attitude, will, and
action is the Holy Spirit. Scripture teaches that “no one speaking
in the Spirit of God ever says ‘Jesus is accursed!’ and no one can
say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except in the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:3). Like-
wise, Paul teaches,
The natural person does not accept the things of

the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he
is not able to understand them because they are
spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges
all things, but is himself to be judged by no one (1
Cor. 2:14–15).
Thus, Scripture teaches that the Spirit is the power behind

our faith, confession, understanding, and acceptance of the things
of God. But it goes beyond that.
We mentioned earlier that a key difference between the Old
and New Covenants is that the New Covenant is a ministry of
the Spirit (2 Cor. 3). In it, God writes his law upon our hearts,
not stone (Heb. 8:10). We are filled with His Spirit and empow-
ered to mortify our flesh (Rom. 8:13), and to obey him. Thus our
new patterns of behavior and thoughts are not said to be the fruit
of our own power, but the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22–25). Paul
says that our change from our old sinful selves is due to the sanc-
tification by the Spirit (1 Cor. 6:11; 2 Thess. 2:13). He says that
the work of his own ministry was by the sanctification of the Holy
Spirit (Rom. 15:16). Indeed, the full scope of Christ’s work is to
bring the nations to obedience in word and deed through sanctifi-
cation of the Spirit (Rom. 15:14–19). He specifies that walking by
the Spirit means not only sanctification, but santification accord-
ing to the righteousness of the law (Rom. 8:4). The law is thus our
pattern of sanctification. Peter adds that God’s election of us is
worked out “through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience
and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 1:2). Thus you
see all aspects clearly: that sanctification is by the Spirit, that it leads
to obedience, that this obedience is specifically according to the law,
and that it is for the nations.
We must acknowledge, therefore, that it is the Holy Spirit that
does the work, and we hold this idea as central to a theonomic soci-
ety. This seems basic enough so as not to need emphasis. A variety
of critics, however, (and some would-be proponents) of Theonomy
perpetuate the idea that we want to first seize the seats of power
and impose God’s laws upon everyone from the top down. Others
repeat an old, slanderous, and well-refuted idea that we desire to
“bring in the Kingdom of God by the works of man.” Adding theon-
omy to postmillennialism just makes that much more scary—even
drawing comparisons to the Taliban! Of course, none of this is even
remotely close to the truth, and those who perpetuate such myths
about their Christian brothers quite simply ought to be ashamed of
themselves for spreading lies.
In truth, as we have seen, Theonomy entails a drastic reduc-
tion in the size and scope of civil government. It seeks to remove
great swaths of government power along with the cords of finance
by which larger governments first buy the compliance of, then
bind, lesser local governments and tyrannize the whole uniformly.
Most importantly, however, Theonomists have always stressed
that a biblical society can only come to pass in the wake of revival.
In other words, it could only be a work of the Spirit, and anything
that is not a work of the Spirit is not only pointless, it could be
dangerous. Social change means social sanctification, and sancti-
fication cannot come from the works of man. When man attempts
to work apart from the Spirit, the results will never be praisewor-
thy and will not result in freedom.
Second, however, we must also acknowledge that when the
Holy Spirit works, He works through people. This is not at all to
take away with the other hand what we have already put down
with the first. But the Holy Spirit works by inspiring, enlighten-
ing, and empowering people to good works. This means that the
evidence of the work of the Spirit will manifest in the improved
and obedient works of men.
Consider an analogy that will befit other views of the end
times: the spread of the Gospel via the Great Commission. Let
us assume the role of someone who believes the chief, yea! and
only, purpose of the Commission is to preach salvation and save
souls—we should not waste our time doing anything else. This
person would scoff at the idea that a theonomic society could
occur before the second coming of Christ. This person may repeat
the caricature about us trying to bring in the Kingdom by our
own works.
Such a person, however, does not see the inconsistency in
their objection. Human involvement is not the same as human
origin. Works that come through man are not the same as works
can come from man. Such Christians themselves, after all, believe
in human involvement in preaching the salvation of souls. They
believe Christ and the Spirit are doing the work of the Gospel
even though the actual presence, preaching, interaction, prayer,
etc. are being done by men. Does this mean that even these pious
savers of souls are guilty of spreading the Kingdom by the works
of men? Of course not. But in order to be consistent with their
own view, they must acknowledge that those who believe in more
concrete manifestations of the Kingdom of God believe noth-
ing different in regard to the source of the works than they them-
selves do about spreading the Gospel. It will necessarily involve
the efforts of men, but that is a whole different thing than saying
it comes from the works of men. No, Christian Reconstruction
toward a theonomic society will come only by the work of the
Holy Spirit; but it will cause, and thus involve, a wide variety of
human works. These works will just happen to be Spirit-driven
works, and He will deserve all the glory.
Third, for the change to be truly social, the Spirit’s influence
must reach a significant portion of a people. Whether this is a
majority or not is up for debate in any given system or society, I
suppose, but we surely must expect a substantial amount of shared
vision, shared goals, and shared values for there to be any mean-
ingful social change. If outward changes are wrought by the influ-
ence of some charismatic leader at an opportunistic moment, it
will probably not last. Social cohesion comes about by shared val-
ues. Without this, change will not have roots and will wither and
die. We do not need charismatic personalities so much as we need
a more widespread educational revival among Christians to effect
faithfulness in service and action. The idea that we will just elect
the right person to the Presidency and then impose a new system
of government is not only naïve and ignorant, it has never been
accurate in regard to Theonomy. Theonomic ethics calls for wide-
spread self-government and decentralization. It is not only incom-
patible with dictators, but to embrace central planning or central-
ized government is to depart from Theonomy by definition.
We need not, however, think of our work as hopeless until
such widespread revival comes to pass. It has usually been true
in history that powerful social changes are spearheaded by only a
small group of the hard core. While it would be a departure from
biblical law to consider some top-down, centralized imposition
of social change, it is nevertheless only through the courageous
activism of small groups and even individuals that the message is
brought to bear upon whole societies that need to hear it. It is only
through such small but devout minorities that the first founda-
tions of social change are laid.
Think of William Wilberforce. He worked almost single-
handedly in Parliament, and with a very small group outside,
to bring about the abolition of slavery throughout the British
Empire. He labored fearlessly and tirelessly for over twenty years,
starting as the voice of a tiny minority and subject to constant rid-
icule. He ended with a majority vote in Parliament. The advance
of his cause and activism could be called nothing less than The-
onomy in action, though he would never have heard the term and
may have not accepted it in theory. But it was. There was no way
it would have come about top-down. He could not have seized the
reins of power if he had wanted to, and if he had, he would have
been opposed widely, bringing about civil unrest if not revolution
or civil war. But his minority status did not dissuade him from
working for the cause—working for reform.
We should consider Wilberforce a prime example of how
theonomic minorities ought to view their work today. We should
engage in activism for reform because it is right, and because even
up against such pervasive opposition we can begin to lay the
foundations of necessary change, if not see it come to pass in our
lifetimes. We should step up and become modern-day Wilber-
forces in regard to justice reform, prison reform, police reform,
legal reform, monetary and banking reform, transformation of
education, welfare, military, free markets and much more. Even
if we think any broad revival is way off, we must still work for
change in laying the foundations in order to be faithful to God’s
calling. And the surprise may just be on us. Who knows what
God intends to do through us as we preach and work His law
in society.
Fourth, the goal of social change means real, concrete changes
in societies and real concrete service and activism on the part of
people. We must emphasize, therefore, that the Spirit working
through people means the Spirit empowering and motivating peo-
ple actually to works. As we have seen, those works will be accord-
ing to the law (Rom. 8:4). Too often, even those who adhere to
a biblical-law worldview do little but talk and write books. Such
educational efforts are, of course, a part of how such a society will
come to pass. We need awareness and instruction. We need infor-
mation. But we also need action. When we speak of obedience, and
obedience according to the law, we are necessarily talking about
changes in behavior. Changes in behavior will mean changes in
how we live, speak, work, spend money, associate with others, vote
(or not vote), and much more. In terms of social change, it means
changes in how the state (not to mention families, churches, cor-
porations, institutions, etc.) behaves. Our activism ought to have
very specific ideas of what these changes would entail, and then
how to work for them in the meantime, if possible.
When we talk about the Spirit’s role in how a theonomic
society will come to pass, therefore, we must consider all aspects.
First, the theological source of change being the Holy Spirit. Sec-
ond, the practical involvement of people. Third, the fact that we
need a critical mass of converts, yet we work for certain changes
in the meantime. Fourth, we have concrete goals toward which we
work, and concrete methods of working. In all such work, we trust
that God will bring His will to pass, and that what does come to
pass will be only by His blessing.
Action plans
While we have established that the Great Commission is
greater than most Christians have been taught, and we have
emphasized the absolute necessity for the Holy Spirit’s power in
any theonomic advance, we have also stressed that people will be
involved, and that they will be involved in specific works. From
reading our vision in the last chapter, you can probably gather
what some of those works may be, but since we are in the begin-
ning stages of transition, it is good to review what kinds of practi-
cal works we can do as priorities.
The following discussion of practical reforms is taken from the
introduction to my book, Restoring America One County at a Time.2
Perhaps the first and foremost area of action needs to be, and
can be, in the area of education. We are not just talking about edu-
cating yourself, we are talking about your children too. Education
in a free society can only be private, never government-run at any
2. Should you desire further detail on these point, you will need to check
out the book at American Vision’s web store. It is also available for free in
html format at http://americanvision.org/5562/restoring-america-one-coun-
ty-at-a-time-master-index/.
level. Government schools are at the heart of the problem of govern-
ment-dominated society. Tax-funded schools cannot be an option
if we are to have a free society. This is one area in which you can
exercise almost complete control already, now. Regaining liberty
here requires no change in existing laws—only one’s lifestyle. Most
Christians could implement these changes tomorrow, if not over a
few months. It is only a test of desire: do we really want a free soci-
ety, or do we depend on tax-funded benefits like the liberals and
socialists we criticize? This change should be priority number one.
And since it requires so little change on the political and social level,
we only need to change ourselves. If we can’t accomplish change in this
one area, then forget the rest. Nothing about truly restoring America
will be easier or more readily obtainable than taking free control
over your family’s education.
Second, we need wholesale reform of all welfare services.
This means we need to learn about options for securing our own
financial futures, privately, while we opt out of Social Security
over time. Welfare of all forms should be a privately-funded and
privately-insured affair, not supported through taxation, redis-
tribution, and subsidy. Family and charity can replace the Wel-
fare State, but we must learn to refuse the benefits promised by
government agencies. Paul directly commands local churches to
install private welfare programs to support needy members (1
Tim. 5). It is time to take up this call. Private Christian alterna-
tives to ObamaCare already exist (for example, Samaritan Minis-
tries). Private Christian alternatives to Social Security and Medi-
Care (see examples among the Amish) already exist. There is no
reason we cannot take advantage of programs that already exist,
and organize to create others in other areas. There is no reason we
cannot gain immediate headway here as well.
Third, the real practical solution to big-government intrusion
in our lives is a return to localism. This involves returning govern-
ment and community to a more grass-roots level where it ought
to be. Christians must develop a truly local vision—confronting
local waste and corruption, focusing on smaller, practical things
we can impact now, and learning to break local institutions free
from the unnecessary bonds of state and federal government tyr-
anny. This means exposing the areas where the sovereignty of local
communities is compromised by receiving Federal and state funds
for perceived benefits. We should learn about, monitor, and inter-
act with local authorities, and network with other local Christians
to spread a biblical understanding.
Fourth, Christians should understand the nature of state-level
activism as well. This means, in part, discussing the roles of nul-
lification and interposition of the lesser magistrates. There is a
tremendous opportunity for Christians to have impact on several
issues at the state level. We can organize to call state officials to
resist federal intrusions of many sorts, and we can influence state
officials to be more faithful to biblical laws on certain issues within
the state: abortion, arms, spending, free markets, and more.
Fifth, we can begin to work in a variety of ways for tax reform.
On the way towards total elimination, taxation of individuals and
businesses must be returned exclusively to the local level. State
taxation, if any, should only be upon counties, and Federal taxa-
tion, if any, should only come from states. Christians should never
see a tax they approve of, and should always lead opposition to
any and all taxation. Of course, this means they should always
also lead the discussion for the replacement of tax-funded pro-
grams with private and charitable services. Pick one, join forces,
get counsel, get busy, and lead the way.
We spoke earlier about the sanctity of private property and
the enforcement of contracts. We certainly need less government
coercion and money manipulation. We need to end monetary
inflation, legal tender laws, the business cycle, government cor-
poratism, and more. But Christians could have a serious impact if
they would simply get more involved in business—local, regional,
and even big business. For some Christians, theonomic recon-
struction will not mean radical activism or outspoken advocacy.
It will simply mean taking your interests, knowledge, and skills,
and starting a business to serve your community and be a light
of God’s law in action. Godly action is at the heart of Christian
reconstruction, and service is at the heart of godly action.
One of the greatest areas of need is in judicial and police
reform—the justice system itself. Without rehearsing the litany of
ills and abuses in these areas, the remedy to recover freedom is the
decentralization of courts, localized and separate jurisdictions,
and private courts (perhaps especially), all with only local law
enforcement by mainly deputized volunteers and strict account-
ability. Paul directly instructs Christians to settle their disputes
among each other in private courts (not ecclesiastical courts neces-
sarily, but private Christian mediation and arbitration) (1 Cor. 6:1–
8). Such measures and organizations for them already exist, but
they are little known and less adhered to. We also have a dire need
for transparency and accountability among police officers, pros-
ecutors, and judges (of both the establishment and liberal activist
varieties). Just a law imitating the biblical laws against malicious
witnesses would go a long way in this need for accountability. We
need tremendous work to be done in spreading awareness about
jury nullification and the unfortunate right of judges and prosecu-
tors to lie about it—a right they readily and frequently exercise.
There is a gargantuan amount of work to do in this area, and there
is also a large amount of it that can be initiated through awareness
and education already.
Another of the most important areas—and perhaps that in
which Christians are most deceived—is in regard to our mili-
tary. We must support and demand a decentralized defense sys-
tem instead of the national standing army and empire we have
allowed, and even promoted, for over a century.3 We need to
take seriously the biblical rules for military and warfare. Patrio-
tism does not mean militarism. Patriotism does not mean empire.
Being patriotic and conservative does not mean always support-
ing everything the military does. Anti-war is not anti-American.
We should be aware how our military was originally decentral-
ized and strictly defense-oriented, and how it was transformed
incrementally to become a powerful centralized force designed to
serve the interests of a central government in prolonged interna-
tional conflicts. There is a great deal of education and awareness
that can be spread here already. We should educate and motivate
ourselves about biblical views of militia, defense, and the right to
bear arms. We should also train ourselves in these areas as well.
In reality, you can take any single aspect of the theonomic
society outlined in the last chapter (or the law itself) and con-
centrate on it as a project for reform. This may or may not involve
change in the civil realm, but it will almost certainly involve social
change in a more general scope—family, church, corporation, or
state. Whatever it may be, pick something, and become the per-
son who thinks it through in a detailed fashion. Master it. Then
become the person who networks with others interested in that
issue and begin to plan and fashion agendas for change. You may
be surprised how many people you inspire and recruit.
Conclusion
They key lessons we have learned in this chapter are that
Christian social change will only be wrought by the power of the
Holy Spirit, and that this power is exercised through people in
3. The full facts are that since the Jamestown settlement in 1609, Ameri-
cans have been involved in some form of war around 139 times. In the inter-
vening 407-year span, we have been “at peace” for only 90 years, with a major-
ity of that coming in the colonial era.
concrete, but decentralized, ways. Christians should not seek the
reins of power, but nevertheless work in every area of life (wher-
ever they may be called and gifted) to bring about awareness, edu-
cation, change, and reform. We must get busy, however, and work
to influence such changes where we can.
How will a theonomic society come to pass? It will come to pass
by the Spirit working through people who stand boldly for truth
and justice. It will come to pass as the message influences a hard
core of the faithful to lay the foundations of godly freedom in every
area of life. It will come to pass as the Holy Spirit brings revival
and people seek biblical solutions to the ills of every area of life. It
will come to pass when Christians take the Great Commission seri-
ously, and the Holy Spirit blesses that effort. In the meantime, we
fight to bring faithfulness among Christians wherever they are at
already, and in what limited spheres are available.
7
What is not Theonomy
S tudents of Theonomy need to be aware that there is more

than one distinct group of believers who use the label “The-
onomy,” and that although they share some aspects in common,
there are critical distinctives which make broad and important
differences—for example, between liberty and death. I would like
to draw the most important of these distinctives for you in this
chapter.
These differences exist for more than one reason. They have
arisen partly because theonomic writers have often not thoroughly
engaged important Old Testament passages to exhaust some of
their most pressing questions. In some cases, writers have not
addressed them at all, and in others have addressed them in a
clumsy or inadequate way. In the light of calls for a return to Old
Testament law in general, this predictably (though unfortunately)
led to some writers and readers assuming that death penalties for
things like blasphemy and apostasy carry into New Testament
times without much thoughtful analysis or exegesis. Further-
ing this assumption has been the fact that all the Reformers and
their followers, along with many prominent ancient and medieval
theologians, assumed the civil government had the duty to pun-
ish First Table offenses, and thus “Theonomy” was seen by some
merely as a return to the Older standards that were once prev-
alent throughout Christendom. As we will see, however, calling
116
What is Not Theonomy 117
this view “Theonomy” is inaccurate and causes confusion. Finally,
there are contemporary movements that in my opinion romanti-
cize the Westminster Divines (selectively anyway), Scottish Cov-
enanters, certain Puritans, Southern Presbyterians, or others. I
consider these groups as often consumed with little more than
a kind of historical reenactment and role-playing—acting out
the dreams of alleged good old days, most of which never really
existed anyway. As a result of their zeal for certain historical fig-
ures or eras, these guys are rich in historical knowledge and we
can learn much from their work (I have). But they seem blinded
to the great flaws that beset even the greatest men and documents
of those times.
We could probably make several classifications of theonomic
writers, but for the purposes of this chapter, I see only two neces-
sary ones. The first is the view outlined in this book. I would call it
simply Theonomy. It is based on exegesis of Scripture and reflects
God’s law in its entirety as it abides in the New Testament admin-
istration. The second view encompasses all the other views men-
tioned above, for they mostly partake of one key—and in my opin-
ion dangerous—error. I will call this error “Constantinianism,”
although we could just as accurately call it Romanism or human-
ism. It often resorts to man-made laws based upon man’s inter-
pretations of so-called “natural law,” often openly denies the oblig-
atory nature of Old Testament judicial laws, and yet still often
desires to have the label “Theonomy” for itself.
We have already made the case for Theonomy according to
the Bible, and the enduring nature of the penal sanctions, etc.
Here we need to delineate the position in contrast to these later
attempts at modern Covenanting, etc., which are not really The-
onomy in the biblical sense, and cannot in my opinion claim to
represent it. Toward this end, we need to rehearse the historical
pedigree of the error of which I speak.
The Great Persecution and the Great Shift
Constantine himself was not as strident in defense of Christi-
anity as some have supposed, but he did begin the establishment
of Christianity as a state church, he did outlaw some forms of her-
esy, and he did assign the punishment of death to some religious
offenses. He still allowed forms of pagan worship to continue,
but gradually moved against them toward the end of his life. By
establishing Christianity, however, he fused Christian ethics with
the practices and ethics of Roman law. This would have a lasting
effect upon Christians until the times of the English and Ameri-
can Revolutions.
It was Constantine’s contribution to take the classical pagan
Roman law behind emperor worship and reapply it as State-
enforced Christianity. The Caesars had practiced emperor wor-
ship. They allowed most other sects and cults to flourish under
the aegis of the Roman Empire as long as they (in most cases)
would simply admit Caesar is Lord. This was a religious confes-
sion. Caesar was considered a son of the gods and while on earth
was the Pontifex Maximus—the high priest of his people. When
a Roman Emperor died, the Senate would proclaim him dei-
fied—ascended to the abode of the other gods. When Christians
refused the imperial cult and also refused to pay homage to any
of the various pagan gods the Romans acknowledged, they were
accused of “atheism” and given the standard Roman penalty for
sacrilege: death.
Christians found reprieve under some later Roman rulers, but
in the late third century, Diocletian embarked on a campaign to
restore the Empire to its former glory. This included a renewed
emphasis upon the classic Roman religion and a propaganda cam-
paign against Christians—the “atheists” whom Romans tradi-
tionally blamed for all of Rome’s major ills. This campaign was
used to justify a great persecution of Christians. His edict in A.D.
303 demanded the destruction and burning of churches, confis-
cation and burning of Bibles, confiscation of all church wealth
by the state, and a prohibition on Christian assemblies. Execu-
tions followed. The Persecution was even more vigorously taken
up the following year by the successor Galerius. Further edicts
demanded that Christians could be arrested and forced to sacri-
fice to the Roman gods upon pain of death.
The persecution, however, did little to eradicate the Chris-
tians as he had hoped, and in fact only strengthened their resolve.
They actually grew in number. After seven years of senseless
bloodshed, Galerius was forced to admit failure and rescind the
edicts. It would be the last great persecution of Christians by
Romans, and the Christians had not only outlasted it, they grew
stronger from it. Even the agnostic author Will Durant recog-
nized the import of what had occurred. Of the end of the Gale-
rian persecution, he wrote,
There is no greater drama in human record than

the sight of a few Christians, scorned or oppressed
by a succession of emperors, bearing all trials with
fierce tenacity, multiplying quietly, building order
while their enemies generated chaos, fighting the
sword with the word, brutality with hope, and at
last defeating the strongest state that history has
known. Caesar had met Christ in the arena, and
Christ had won.1
Caesar may have been broken, but his spirit was still around.
Constantine had been acknowledged co-Emperor in 306 and
soon solidified his rule. Having recently been influenced by
1. Will Durant, Caesar and Christ: A History of Roman Civilization and of

Christianity from their beginnings to A.D. 325, The Story of Civilization: Part 3
(New York: Simon and Schuster, 1944), 652.
Christianity, he announced the Edict of Milan in 313, generaliz-
ing Roman religion and allowing Christianity (along with many
other religions) religious liberty. But it was a compromised lib-
erty.
Constantine maintained the title Pontifex Maximus and
apparently still entertained the son-of-god status as well, for the
Senate apotheosized him later at his death. As a self-conscious
high priest, however, the Emperor thought he had to maintain
the purity of religion in the Empire. So, he superintended the
controversies of the church—the Donatist controversy and the
later Arian heresy—with increasing vigor. He ruled in favor
of the establishment Bishops and others who had bowed to
emperor worship under Diocletian and Galerius in order to save
their necks. The Donatists who opposed this were declared in
error by the state. When they persisted, Constantine published
edicts demanding Donatist churches to be confiscated. Those
who continued to create disturbance of the peace would be liable
to exile or death.
In the later case of Arius, Constantine declared that their
churches and possessions could be seized and that their books
must be burned. Any official caught hiding or protecting Arian
literature would be given the death penalty.
Constantine’s contributions did not result in mass persecution
and extermination of heretics, apostates, or pagans. But what he
did was set a precedent that future rulers would expand and abuse.
For our purposes, the most important aspect is that in all of this he
never had recourse to biblical law—it was the furthest thing from
his mind. What he actually did, as we said, is take the imperial cult
and the regulations of Roman law and baptize them in favor of an
official Christianity. In fact, the enlightenment historian Edward
Gibbon claims that some of Constantine’s legislation simply copied
the edicts of Diocletian and just replaced the names of who would
get the fire. Whether Constantine did this self-consciously or not
is not clear, but the effect is.
After Constantine (yes, it gets worse)

Those who followed Constantine intensified his laws. Dur-
ing his reign, many of the Bishops developed a taste for power
and wanted more. Some, for example, Lactantius, flipped-flopped
immediately on the death penalty. An outspoken critic before, the
spiritual counselor to the Emperor himself suddenly hailed his
master’s duty to exact vengeance on the wicked.
Within a generation of Constantine, some of the establish-
ment bishops were calling for the power of the state to purge all
heresies. Constantine’s limited abuse was on its way to becoming
a universal rule. As early as A.D. 346, Julius Firmicus Mater-
nus rose to preeminence as an apologist urging Constantius II
to destroy utterly all idolatry and pagan temples, and he would
be answered. You can set the demands of Diocletian’s persecu-
tion of Christians side-by-side with some of those from Constan-
tine, but especially Constantius II, Theodosius, and Justinian
after him, and see that the only difference is that the roles were
reversed. Instead of Christians, heretics and some pagans got the
ire of the Roman state.
Justinian
Emperor Justinian collected, systematized, and recodified all
the laws of these Christian emperors before him. His collection
is known as the Corpus iuris civilis (Body of Civil Law), and the
heart of it was the twelve tables of the Codex iustinianus, or Justin-
ian Code.
Under Justinian’s Code all heretics were to be suppressed, their
buildings taken from them, and their books banned, confiscated,
and burned. If they met in private houses, their houses would be
confiscated and given to the Catholic Church. Teachers of false
doctrines were given the death penalty. One important law (as we
shall see later) specifically aimed at the enduring Donatists decreed
that anyone merely rebaptizing a person (and the one inducing him
to do so) would receive the death penalty.
There were many other religious-oriented death penalties
under Justinian’s restoration of the Christian Roman Empire.
Attempting to marry a nun was punishable by death. So was
interfering with a church service—a direct carry-over from pagan
Rome. Jews or pagans were forbidden to proselytize upon pain of
death by burning. Jews or pagans could not own Christians as
slaves, and if they did they were liable to capital punishment. If a
slave owned by a pagan or Jew converted to Christianity, he was
set free. If the pagan or Jewish master attempted to dissuade the
slave from his new conversion, the master could receive capital
punishment.
Existing synagogues were allowed to remain, but building a
new one was an offense punishable by death. All pagan temples
were ordered closed. Anyone conducting pagan worship services
would receive “the extreme penalty”—death by the sword. His
property would be confiscated, his heirs disinherited, and the
property given to the church.
This Constantinian precedent endured right into the Mid-
dle Ages. In the early 800s, Emperor Leo V’s administration led
a purge of the heretical sect of Paulicians, allegedly killing up to
100,000.
Again, these laws were nothing more than an exact parallel
of what Romans had always done to those who committed sac-
rilege against Rome. Not a bit of this was done based on Mosaic
law, but on carry-overs from pagan Roman law. Mosaic law is not
referenced, not required, not in mind, and often repudiated and
violated in practice.
Thomas Aquinas
After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the direct use
of Roman law waned. Throughout Europe, civil laws were a mix
of local, tribal laws and Roman law. In 1070, however, a copy of
Justinian’s Code was discovered in Bologna. This coincided with
the rise of the Papacy to its medieval height, and a legal revolu-
tion was born. Over the next several centuries, the Roman law
was further developed, universities appeared, and clerics were
trained in both ecclesiastical (canon) law and civil law based once
again upon Justinian. Throughout this period, the death pen-
alty for certain religious offenses was derived from that same old
Roman law.
While there were debates, Thomas Aquinas stands as repre-
sentative of the establishment view. Thomas called for the death
penalty for First Table offenses. He directly discussed heretics
and called for their execution.2 In some cases, he argued, unbe-
lievers who have never been Christians should be tolerated—for
example, when they are large in number and compulsion would
cause social problems. In other cases, where possible, they should
be compelled “so that they do not hinder the faith, by their blas-
phemies, or by their evil persuasions.” This could include warfare.
Unbelievers, however, who had formerly been believers—heretics
and apostates—should be subject to bodily compulsion, which as
we just read includes death.3
Thomas even believed that if a man was considered “danger-
ous and infectious to the community on account of some sin”—not
necessarily even a criminal per se—that man should be executed
for the good of the community.4 This was a Roman idea of govern-
ment mixed with Aristotelean notions as well.
2. Summa Theologica, 2:2, Q. 11, Art. 3.

3. Summa Theologica, 2:2, Q. 10, Arts. 8, 11.
Again, Aquinas was following establish Roman precedent,
not biblical law. While he upheld these First Table penalties, he
made clear that he believed the Mosaic judicial law was no longer
binding.5 His answer to the question of the duration of the judi-
cial laws seems to me to formalize what most theologians, includ-
ing the Reformers, following him would repeat. He says that the
ceremonial law is both “dead” and “deadly.” It is dead in that it is
no longer binding, but deadly because those who return to it in
place of Christ are damning their souls. The judicial law is also
dead, just not deadly. In other words, the judicial laws are no lon-
ger binding or necessary, but civil rulers would not be sinning if
they choose to implement them freely at their own discretion and
for their own purposes. They would be fine and not sinning as
long as they did not say these laws were necessary because they
were God’s laws.
For Aquinas, the Mosaic judicials have absolutely no binding
character in the New Testament, and the New Testament pre-
scribed (continued) absolutely nothing in regard to civil punish-
ments. Thus, all judicial penalties “are left to the decision of man.”6
These decisions need not derive from the Bible, but from human
expediency. He adds that such laws are “not essential to virtue in
respect of any particular determination, but only in regard to the
common notion of justice.” We will see Calvin appropriate this
argument later.
So, as with Justinian, we have an odd combination of State-
enforced religion upon pains of death, while at the same time a
repudiation of the need for Mosaic judicial law. The difference is
that Aquinas systematizes the Constantinian/Justinian program
in concise form for future theologians.
5. Summa Theologica, 1:2, Q. 104.

Martin Luther and Philip Melanchthon

The theologians of the Reformation generation were all trained
in the same legal traditions that developed from the rediscovery of
Justinian. Calvin and Luther, and Luther’s colleague Philip Mel-
anchthon (among many others), were all trained as lawyers in what
had become known as the ius commune, or “common law.”7
Melanchton wrote the seminal systematic theology of the
Reformation, Loci Communes, or “Common Places” (of theology).
In it, he clearly denounced the need for Mosaic law, and in fact
argued that even the Ten Commandments had been abrogated.
Yet he also assumed Aquinas’s argument that a magistrate could,
if he wished, use Mosaic laws, but not as if they were of divine
obligation. He went on to argue that civil law lies entirely outside
the realm of Christian life, and anyone appealing to vengeance or
litigation was not a Christian. Similar statements and views can
be found in Luther as well. His vulgar denunciation of lawyers
fills his early works: “Jurists are bad Christians.” “Every jurist is
an enemy of Christ.”8
Such an attitutde leaves the realm of law outside the con-
straints of revelation. Sure enough, this is where Melanchton and
Luther would reach, and the results were nearly blasphemous.
Melanchthon loved Justinian’s Code so much he praised it as
inspired of God. He admitted it was of “heathen origin,” yet went
on to say that it contained laws that were “the very voice of God,
offered to the human race through wise rulers whose minds God
ruled by a special inspiration so that they saw the sources of jus-
7. This is not to be confused with English Common Law which is a differ-
ent, non-Roman, and superior animal upon which the American system came to
be built. See my Introduction to God’s Law and Government in America: Three
Historic Sermons (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision Press, 2015).
8. Quoted in John Witte, Jr., Law and Protestantism: The Legal Teachings
of the Lutheran Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002),
119.
tice and showed them to others.” No kidding. And he topped even
that by stating that parts of that Code could be considered “a vis-
ible appearance of the Holy Spirit.”9
Based on this Roman legal heritage, both Luther and Mel-
anchthon (and others in their circles in Wittenberg), openly
called for the death penalty for certain heretics, particularly Ana-
baptists. In fact, after their Augsburg Confession was solidified,
they began to urge their princes more and more to extirpate the
dreaded rebaptizers.
Anabaptists were derided equally by Roman Catholics and
Protestants. Even when imperial talks between the two groups
fell through, one thing they agreed upon was that Anabaptists
should be stamped out. Thus the Catholics reaffirmed Justinian’s
old death penalty for rebaptizers, originally created for Donatists,
at the Second Diet of Speyer in 1529. Protestants picked up the
idea immediately. Melanchthon and Luther began promoting it as
early as 1530. When a particularly violent strain of Anabaptists
overthrew the city of Münster, they grew even more vehement.
Lutheran princes began regularly killing Anabaptists in 1536,
with Melanchthon himself often involved in interrogations.
In these cases, Melanchthon did mention the death penal-
ties for blasphemy in Mosaic law, but it is clear he had to stretch
the definition of “blasphemy” to include Anabaptism’s practices
of private churches and rebaptism. But he was able to find clear
license in his beloved Roman precedent founded in Justinian.
Again, these measures came from theologians who had repu-
diated any need for Moses, yet assumed a Roman law standard
for punishing religious offenses. Not only did they not really
heed biblical law, this same Melanchthon is the guy who in his
Defense of the Augsburg Confession (1531) penned that it was in fact
“insane” to impose the judicial laws of Moses.
9. Quoted in Witte, Jr., Law and Protestantism, 77.

John Calvin
John Calvin’s views on this issue were little different than
those of his medieval predecessors or his Lutheran contempo-
raries. In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, he both repudiates
the necessity of Mosaic judicial laws and appeals to pagans as jus-
tification for punishing religious offenses.
Critics of Theonomy have often pointed out Calvin’s views on
the Mosaic judicials, and they are largely correct. Calvin wrote,
[T]here are some who deny that a commonwealth

is duly framed which, neglecting the political sys-
tem of Moses, is ruled by the common laws of
nations. Let other men consider how perilous and
seditious this notion is; it will be enough for me to
have proved it false and foolish.10
Note briefly Calvin’s default alternative: “the common law of

nations.” This is a reference to the Justinian tradition of ius com-
mune which had been passed down, and in which he had been
trained. Calvin then goes on to argue that the judicial laws of Moses
were “taken away” and thus, “surely every nation is left free to make
such laws as it foresees to be profitable for itself.”11 Diversity of pun-
ishments makes no difference. As long as they punish crimes in
general, “all laws tend toward the same end.” For example, “Against
adultery some nations levy severer, others, lighter punishments.”
But this “diversity” is perfect in Calvin’s view, because some nations
need harsher penalties for some crimes than others. God’s law (the
10. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1536 Edition, trans.
By Ford Lewis Battles (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans and the H. H. Meeter
Center for Calvin Studies, 1986), 215. The statements here and below taken
from the original 1536 remained virtually unchanged through Calvin’s last
editions in 1559 and 1560.
11. Calvin, Institutes, 1536 Edition, 216.
moral element) is still maintained as long as crime is punished, no
matter how it is punished.12
Thus, the Mosaic demand for punishments that strictly fit the
crime is thrown out, along with Moses’ definitions of what those
strictly just penalties must be. Thus, again, for example, if theft
or false witness are punished harshly with capital punishment,
instead of as prescribed in the Bible, Calvin can be perfectly fine
with it.13 The editor of Calvin’s modern editions notes, however,
the true source of Calvin’s thinking here. His discussion of diverse
penalties here is not based upon biblical exegesis, but based on
studies in Justinian and commentaries on other pagan statesmen,
especially Seneca.14
Based upon these Roman sources also, Calvin upheld the
practice of civil punishments for religious offenses. Civil govern-
ment, he taught, “prevents idolatry, sacrilege against God’s name,
blasphemies against his truth, and other public offenses against
religion.”15 In the last edition he expanded and defended his view,
again revealing its pagan background. He argues that “If Scripture
did not teach that [the magistrate’s duty] extends to both Tables of
the Law, we could learn it from secular writers.”16 But he gives no
space at all to demonstrate his views from Scripture, he only gives
us a natural law view. Among these “secular writers,”
[N]o one has discussed the office of magistrates,

the making of laws, and public welfare, without
beginning at religion and divine worship. And
thus all have confessed that no government can
be happily established unless piety is the first con-
12. Calvin, Institutes, 1536 Edition, 216–217.

14. Battles, in Calvin, Institutes, 1536 Edition, 334.
16. Institutes (1559–60), 4.20.9.
cern. . . . Since, therefore, among all philosophers
religion takes first place, and since this fact has
always been observed by universal consent of all
nations, let Christian princes and magistrates be
ashamed of their negligence if they do not apply
themselves to this concern.17
It is folly, Calvin argues, that rulers should focus only on justice

among men, for the purity of worship is of far greater importance. It
was a theme common since at least Aquinas that it is better to pun-
ish men in the body in order to save their souls from themselves, or
to protect society from their heresies. Calvin added a description of
anarchist terrorism: if we do not stamp out these vile false worship-
pers, they will overturn society and run out the only people who
could stop them: “[The] passion to alter everything with impunity
drives turbulent men to the point of wanting all vindicators of vio-
lated piety removed from their midst.”18
Thus you can see that Calvin offers a little-altered version of
Justinian all over again, and shows no difference at all from both
his Catholic and Lutheran contemporaries. Indeed, the famed
execution of Servetus was merely finishing a job Roman Catholics
had started. Calvin supplied documents to the Catholic Inquisi-
tion which had arrested Servetus in Lyon. Soon after Servetus
escaped that fate by escaping prison, he was arrested in Geneva.
There he was executed with approbation from Geneva, Rome, and
Wittenberg alike.
After Calvin
The precedent, however, began to change in a few instances.
Some second-generation Reformers began taking the restric-
tions of Mosaic law more seriously. One impetus for this may well
17. Institutes (1559–60), 4.20.9.
18. Institutes (1559–60), 4.20.9.
have been the conversion of a Jewish convert and Hebraist named
Immanuel Tremellius. Along with his colleague Franciscus Junius
at Heidelberg, Tremellius argued that the Mosaic judicial laws
were binding in large part, and thus rulers were beholden to limit
penalties for theft, etc., to what was revealed in Moses. This view
would have been perceived as lenient and perhaps even liberal at
the time when Roman law prevailed and rulers could, and did,
punish crimes as ruthlessly as they liked.
These two scholars influenced another, the aforementioned
Johannes Piscator, whose version of the argument became the
most famous, lasting clear into the American Puritan era.19 Pisca-
tor was referenced on this issue directly by some of the Westmin-
ster Divines, notably George Gillespie. A couple comments are in
order, however. The view of each of these three post-Calvin “The-
onomists” maintained the First Table penalties. In this they were
congruent with the Roman-based practice of the day, and thus
found no controversy. I believe they were wrong in this regard.
Nevertheless, they spearheaded the argument that the civil rulers
were also bound and limited to the punishments outlined for the
Second Table. This improvement upon the tyrannies of the era
was biblically correct and therefore laudable.
The Covenanters
We are now in a position to consider the “Covenanters” who
eventually made up much of the Westminster Assembly and
produced its famous documents. The first thing we have to note
is that they were mixed on this issue.20 There is no monolithic
19. See Disputations on the Judicial Laws of Moses (Powder Springs, GA:
American Vision Press, 2015).
20. See the helpful and detailed discussion by Chris Coldwell, “The
Westminster Assembly and the Judicial Law: A Chronological Compilation
and Analysis, Part 1,” The Confessional Presbyterian 5 (2009): 3–55. The analy-
sis by his colleague in Part 2 is not nearly as productive.
“Covenanter” view. The majority were of the establishment view
descended from Justinian: Mosaic judicial law is no longer bind-
ing and princes can punish crime however they see fit, but they
nevertheless have a natural law duty to punish religious offenses.
George Gillespie and a few others tempered their views with
Piscator, and thus bound the civil government in Second Table
offenses, but not in First. Even theologians who acknowledged the
contributions of Piscator, who divided between those judicial laws
which pertained only to Israel, and are thus abrogated, and those
judicials which were universal, nevertheless disagreed over where
the lines were drawn. For example, William Perkins followed Pis-
cator’s distinction, but argued in part that the way to tell whether
a particular punishment was still binding or not was if pagan
nations had also arrived at the same punishment for that crime in
the past. In this arrangement Perkins particularly praised . . . wait
for it . . . the Roman Emperors!21
The celebrated Samuel Rutherford leaned more toward Cal-
vin’s view. He argued that First Table offenses must be punished
but that the Mosaic judicial punishments were not binding. In a
work specifically intended to prove that a Christian government
should not allow “liberty of conscience,” Rutherford unbridled
the power of the state in regard to penalties. He argued that
stoning blasphemers was “necessary civil use.” He even argued
that the Canaanite wars specially commanded to Joshua were
based on natural law and could be copied somehow today, just
not in the full extermination of women and children. Neverthe-
less, he repudiated the need for the judicial standards of Moses
elsewhere—meaning the binding of the State—and suggests
that pagan penalties could be used. He then reveals his theo-
logical foundations for such a low view of the judicials: Aqui-
21. A Discourse of Conscience (Cambridge, 1596), 18.

nas, along with the Jesuit theologian from Salamanca, Francisco
Suárez.22
In the end, only a handful of the Covenanters actually took
Mosaic law any more seriously than a biblical cover for why they
should continue the old Roman heritage—though they would
never have admitted it in those terms. In general, they used Moses
when they liked, but their practice was based upon Roman prec-
edents of so-called natural law, punishments defined freely by the
state as the rulers saw fit, and a desire to be those rulers mak-
ing the decisions. They wished for nothing more than speedily to
depose the Anglo-Catholic tyrants in the seats of power, except
perhaps to ascend to those seats themselves. They aimed to leave
the civil powers just as they were except to change the targets of
religious punishments.
It was for this reason that when the English Civil War briefly
resulted in Covenanter ascendancy, but with no apparent reduc-
tion in tyranny, John Milton penned a sonnet calling out Ruth-
erford, Anthony Steuart, and Thomas Edwards by name. He
observed that they had merely seized power “From them whose
sin ye envied, not abhorred,” and continued to use the sword in
an attempt to coerce men’s consciences. Milton, certainly repre-
senting the Westminster dissenting party as a whole, condemned
these Covenanters of plots “worse than those of Trent” and rid-
iculing them as Pharisees. He ended by immortalizing Cove-
nanter polity in stark irony: “New presbyter is but old priest writ
large.”
And he was right. There was no difference in the powers of
the State these Covenanters desired to run than what Constan-
22. Rutherford, A Free Disputation against Pretended Liberty of Con-

science (London, 1640), 266 (chapter 25). Rutherford was widely read in all
the jurists and theologians up until his time. His famous Lex, Rex begins not
with biblical law, but with appeals to Aristotle, and to various members of the
Catholic School of Salamanca: Suárez, De Soto and others.
tine had transposed from Diocletian’s edicts and the classical
imperial cult death penalties. All throughout history, these reli-
gious punishments had been the legacy of Roman civil law, and
had been argued and cited directly as such over and over. They
had been passed down throughout Roman legal history as powers
arising from natural law.
Even many of the Reformed Baptists of the era believed in
the Roman establishment principle, yet marginalized Mosaic
judicial law in their later confession. In a 1659 Declaration they
defended themselves against the charge that they believed in reli-
gious tolerance:
Nor do we desire, in matters of Religion, that

Popery should be tolerated . . . or any persons
tolerated, that worship a false god; nor any that
speak contemptuously and reproachfully of our
Lord Jesus Christ; nor any that deny the holy
Scriptures, contained in the Books of the Old and
New Testament, to be the Word of God.23
And this non-toleration they said explicitly should be “in mat-

ters civil.”
Conclusion
The modern Covenanter reenactors, as well as certain other
Presbyterians romanticizing the original Westminster Confes-
sion, who wish to appropriate that term “Theonomy” for them-
selves simply have things upside-down. Biblical law has trans-
ferred First Table punishments from earthly civil governments
to the throne of heaven, but it upholds as highly as ever the laws
of justice that bind the power of the state, require just contracts
23. Anon., Declaration of several of the people called Anabaptists in and

about the city of London (London: printed for Livewel Chapman, 1659).
and sound money, forbid false arrests and prosecutions, proscribe
wars of intervention, fiat financing, and national debt, Socialism,
and welfarism. In short, Biblical law is about liberty and prosper-
ity in Christ.
Would-be Covenanters, however, affirm a model in which,
if maintained consistently, the state is unrestrained in nearly all
respects: it is given the power to punish non-Christian worship
even up to the death penalty, and yet does not require the state to
be bound by strict standards of justice on Second Table offenses.
The state can be creative, and a creative state is a dangerous and
deadly state. In fact, I do not see how such a standard could not
be used to justify even the oppressive prison system we have
today, police and prosecutorial abuses, or much worse. This is
not biblical law. It is the opposite of liberty on all fronts. It would
be nothing less than the Constantinian tradition unleashed all
over again.
We perhaps ought to reflect back upon Durant’s acknowl-
edgement of the Christian triumph over Diocletian and Galerius,
yet before Constantine:
There is no greater drama in human record than

the sight of a few Christians, scorned or oppressed
by a succession of emperors, bearing all trials with
fierce tenacity, multiplying quietly, building order
while their enemies generated chaos, fighting the
sword with the word, brutality with hope, and at
last defeating the strongest state that history has
known. Caesar had met Christ in the arena, and
Christ had won.24
24. Will Durant, Caesar and Christ: A History of Roman Civilization and
of Christianity from their beginnings to A.D. 325, The Story of Civilization: Part
3 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1944), 652.
All that was needed to defeat Caesar was the Word of God
preached and lived consistently, and a demand for justice and lib-
erty. In truth, it was the Spirit of God. The stone cut out without
hands smashed the statue of Nebuchadnezzar on its Roman feet,
and brought the whole crashing down. And it did so without First
Table penalties and powers—only the power of the Holy Spirit
inspiring courage, patience, and faithfulness.
What is needed more than anything today is for the pulpits
to return to preaching the full scope of God’s justice, and for the
body of Christ to uphold that standard to all of culture. With
such faithfulness and courage today, we could once again watch
the would-be Caesars of the world fail and the edifice of statism
and tyranny crumble with them. We do not need another Con-
stantine. We need Spirit-filled Theonomy in the pulpits, and in
the hearts and minds of every Christian.
Epilogue
I wrote this little book for two main reasons. First, I want
to instruct young interested readers in the biblical founda-
tions of Theonomy in a clear, simple way. Second, I need to address
some long outstanding questions that I believe, quite frankly, have
never been clarified.
For the first purpose, I think the book speaks for itself. For
the second, I have waded into a sort of “no man’s land” between
what, in the past, were unfortunately seen as warring factions.
While the vast majority of critics of Theonomy past and present
have been of a knee-jerk and even dishonest variety, a few talented,
considerate, and largely sympathetic critics provided careful exe-
getical responses that took Mosaic law seriously, even for modern
civil governments, yet saw biblical theological reasons to drop sev-
eral of the death penalties and make other modifications. I see my
own analysis lining up with a good portion of theirs. Some of the
foundational authors of modern Theonomy took too much excep-
tion to such analysis too readily, and their intransigence, while
certainly earnest, led to division rather than scholarly engage-
ment. This hindered the textual exegesis, analysis, and application
that remained. The division led some to drop the label “theono-
mist,” as if another’s rejection of their qualifications demanded it.
This is unnecessary.
136
Epilogue 137
“Theonomy” means “God’s law,” not “Greg Bahnsen’s law” or
“R. J. Rushdoony’s law” or “Gary North’s law” or “Joel McDur-
mon’s law.” We are in early stages, still, of working through
detailed exegetical questions and applications. We have learned a
ton already, but there is simply more to hash out. Bahnsen him-
self made this clear at the outset of his seminal work, Theonomy
in Christian Ethics,1 acknowledging first in the original “Preface”
that he had not even attempted to address specific details of God’s
law, only the formal general obligation to it,2 and second, that his
work left “a great deal to be explored” and “extensive room for
disagreement in the area of exegeting, understanding, and apply-
ing God’s law in specific situations.”3 Even as late as his last pub-
lication on Theonomy (1991), he admitted he still had not fully
worked out his views on the penalty for apostasy (Deut. 17:2–5),
and that he had always been open to the fact that it no longer
applied in the New Testament.4 He finished that note saying his
conclusions would have to await another book— a book he never
got the chance to write.
I am thankful for the places where Bahnsen, Rushdoony, and
others did mention such passages, but I agree that what treat-
ments we have of them have been incomplete. There were others,
who did not accept, or who no longer accept the label Theon-
omy, who did give more detailed treatment to such laws, and after
laboring over them myself, I found myself agreeing with them in
large part. Nevertheless, the label “Theonomy” is crucial because
it is a biblical doctrine. I therefore maintain it, and argue that
anyone who fits within a simple definition (chapter two) can bear
the label. For this reason, I argue that even theologians such as A.
1. 3rd Edition (Nacogdoches, TX: Covenant Media Foundation).

2. Theonomy in Christian Ethics, 3rd Ed., xxxix.
3. Theonomy in Christian Ethics, 3rd Ed., xl.
4. No Other Standard (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics,
1991), 247n10.
W. Pink can be called theonomic. While I was ridiculed for mak-
ing this statement in public, the mere fact that Pink demands the
modern application of lex talionis makes him by definition a the-
onomist, even if his theology in other places is inconsistent with
that. At worst we would call him an inconsistent theonomist.
What we need now is a renewed conversation of biblical law
and its modern applications among those of us who are open to
disagreement and discussion, yet see the abiding validity of some
Mosaic principles as obligatory for modern governments. From
there we can provide a platform for pulpits to teach and for Chris-
tians to engage in godly social reform, criminal justice reform, etc.
We need to reengage the discussion, and to do so on the basis of
what we have learned so far about Theonomy.
Summary Conclusion
So what have we learned about Theonomy in this book? We
have learned that love is the summary of the law, and that God’s
law is the explication and bounds of what love truly is. If we want
to display Christian love, we must obey His commandments,
meaning, His law. We have learned that this love-law principle
is embedded in the heart of the New Covenant and the Great
Commission.
We have learned that there is both continuity and discontinuity
in the law. We learned that the Bible itself gives us the principles by
which to categorize given laws, parts of laws, or sets of laws as such.
The most important of these principles is cherem. By this we under-
stand that all First Table death penalties and sex-related death
penalties no longer apply. By this we understand that stoning was
a ritualistic method of death and no longer applies. We have also
learned that separation laws no longer apply. These include priestly
and temple laws, holy land laws, and seed laws in general. God has
Epilogue 139
removed jurisdiction over these sins from earthly civil governments
and transferred it to the throne room of Christ.
We learned that the law of proportionate punishment, or lex
talionis, is the basic moral principle that lies behind all the penal
sanctions. The remaining ones, therefore, are abiding standards
and remain obligatory for civil governments today. This includes
standards for property rights, contracts, false witness, strictly
limited government, and more.
When we ask what a theonomic society would look like, we
study these remaining laws and answer for ourselves. It would be
a society of liberty, free markets, sound money, tiny government,
and with church-based and private devotion to charity, sexual
purity, family, and worship. From our biblical law platform, there
would be strong pushes for homeschooling, dismantling the wel-
fare-warfare state, dismantling the military-industrial complexes,
criminal justice reform, and much more in relation to the spread
of peace and free markets.
Such a vision will sound like a utopian dream to many who are
encultured by modern times and establishments, and for whom
thinking outside of that box is fearful or encumbered by the limi-
tations of their ideas of practicality. Certainly such a society is a
long way off, but when we begin to inquire as to how it could ever
come to pass, we can only derive great encouragement from Scrip-
ture. The Great Commission demands that we hold forth such a
dream, and the power of the Holy Spirit demands that we dare not
think it could not come to pass. In this light, therefore, we follow
our mandate to disciple the nations in all of Christ’s law, and trust
that the Holy Spirit will bring to pass what He will in His time.
We can easily look around and find any of several places to begin
Kingdom work, and then get to it.
Finally, we have learned that top-down social orders, punish-
ments for First Table religious offenses, and top-down agendas for
social change do not comport with the teachings of Theonomy.
Those who wish, therefore, merely to Christianize the establish-
ment, compromise with it for the sake of advance, establish an
alleged Christian state not bound by the abiding strictures of the
civil law, or who think that Christians can merely grab existing
seats of power and institute change cannot be considered theon-
omic. While a few such people in history have appealed to Moses
here or there, most have merely adapted pagan Roman law, varia-
tions of it, institutions created by it, or other pagan bases, and the
results have been not only unjust but disastrously so.
Young theonomists should take from this book a helpful foun-
dation upon which to build an agenda for study, advance, engage-
ment in culture, and activism. The old guard has hopefully found
clarification and an advance in applicational method by which
to refine their endeavors along the same lines, perhaps start new
ones, and perhaps rejoin old and forgotten dialogues. We badly
need all of this today. Having a fairly common foundation and a
common desire will help get the message of comprehensive Refor-
mation back in our pulpits and pews, and then society and state
houses, once again.
Bibliographic Essay
I am almost embarrassed to call this a “Bibliographic

Essay,” because those are usually quite long, populated
with dozens of works, and aimed at leading the reader into the
mainstream of scholarly literature on the subject. This contribu-
tion will be brief in comparison, and is mostly aimed, I confess,
at absolving myself of the charge of plagiarism of those works to
which I am surely indebted. There are a handful of such writers
upon whom I have relied and whom I have appropriated liberally
for several observations. They deserve all the credit in every case,
and I here surrender it to them fully.
Perhaps the most important work for this book has been Gary
North’s four-volume economic commentary on Leviticus. Partic-
ularly, it is his “Conclusion” to that work, found in volume three,
which outlines the categories of discontinuity: priestly laws, land
laws, seed laws.1 Gary reproduces, and in some degree expands
upon, his views in his answer to Vern Poythress, in Theonomy: An
Informed Response (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Econom-
ics, 1991), pp. 255–294. I enlarge Gary’s terminology a bit, but
replicate his conclusions almost exactly. Then, after studying his
exegesis, I read the recent translation of Johannes Piscator, Dispu-
tations on the Judicial Laws of Moses (Powder Springs, GA: Amer-
1. This book is not in physical print, but can be found in PDF at http://
www.garynorth.com/BoundariesAndDominion3.pdf.
141
ican Vision Press, 2015). Piscator is less detailed, but his appli-
cations of continuity and discontinuity are almost identical to
North’s later, but independent, exegesis. I was so impressed with
Piscator that I bought the rights to the translation and published
it through American Vision. While I disagree with him at points,
his work should be required reading for students. If the congruity
with North is not enough, the fact that his work is cited by West-
minster Divines, Puritans up until the American Constitutional
era, as well as Reformed Baptists like John Gill, ought to persuade
you of its importance.
I have certainly made use of R. J. Rushdoony’s Institutes of Bib-
lical Law, although I cannot off the top of my head recall where
I have explicitly employed it. Nevertheless, it will always be an
influence, will always merit consulting on any issue even if I end
up disagreeing, and is required reading in the field of Theonomy.
The same is true of his commentaries, particulary on Deuteron-
omy and Exodus 21–23.
I have taken some of the distinctions and examples regard-
ing “non-binding commandments” (pp. 31–33 above) from Greg
Bahnsen in Theonomy in Christian Ethics, 3rd Ed. (Nacogdo-
ches, TX: Covenant Media Press, 2002), p. xxvi note 13. While
I think Bahnsen’s category of “standing laws” laws was primitive
and needed much development, his distinction is nevertheless as
decent a place to start as any, so I use it. I found particular inspi-
ration in one of Bahnsen’s lesser-known works: a reply to Aiken
Taylor, “God’s Law and Gospel Prosperity: A Reply to the Editor
of the Presbyterian Journal.”2 I have taken from his section refut-
ing Taylor’s “test by details” as well as his long paragraph high-
lighting some of the practical outworkings of theonomic polity.
This inspired me to create my own chapter, “What It would Look
2. This essay is currently available at http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/

pe041.htm. A print edition is forthcoming.
Bibliographic Essay 143
Like.” In addition to Bahnsen, I also gleaned a beginning outline
from John Calvin’s Harmony of the Four Last Books of Moses.
Two non-theonomists deserve special mention. After read-
ing some of their contributions in comparison to my own conclu-
sions here, I would, in fact, rather describe them both as almost-
theonomists rather than non-theonomists, for we are virtually
on the same page. The two are John Frame and Vern Poythress.
Frame’s relevant contribution is his article, “Toward a Theol-
ogy of the State,” originally in Westminster Theological Journal
51:2 (1989), 199–226.3 More important than this, however, is
Poythress’s fairly thorough book, The Shadow of Christ in the Law
of Moses (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1995).
While I disagree with some of his conclusions, I find myself
agreeing in most cases. This now-25-year-old work makes a great
beginning point for further discussion, and quite frankly should
have spawned such discussion seriously years ago. This discus-
sion needs to inquire why that, even if preachers are not preach-
ing “Theonomy” from Reformed pulpits today, they are at least
not preaching the almost-Theonomy of Poythress that all would
agree is safely orthodox and badly needed. I would be the first to
promote such a course of action.
I have also benefited from a lot of the studies in James B. Jor-
dan’s books The Law of the Covenant: An Exposition of Exodus
21–23 (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1984) and
Through New Eyes: Developing a Biblical View of the World (Brent-
wood, TN: Wolgemuth and Hyatt, 1988). I cannot say at this
point where I have referenced them specifically or substantially,
but they are both important contributions from which I have ben-
efited and which stand behind my understanding and exegetical
methods in some respects.
3. Now also available at http://frame-poythress.org/toward-a-theology-

of-the-state/.
In developing my views on cherem, I found J. P. U. Lilley's arti-
cle “Understanding the Herem,” Tyndale Bulletin 44:1 (1993), pp.
169–177, extremely helpful, especially in its systematic examina-
tion of every instance of the word in the Bible.
For some of the history in Chapter 7, I relied upon several
works. Most are footnoted. Among those not footnoted I must
mention the magisterial work on early Christianity by W. H. C.
Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984).
I have especially relied upon the sections on Diolcletian, Galerius,
and the Constantinian shift. I also read Will Durant’s narratives
in this era, which is always a good idea for pleasure if nothing else,
but usually for profit also. On the persecutions waged by the post-
Constantinian emperors, there is a particularly helpful Wikipedia
article (no lie) with good footnotes to follow.4 On the vast array of
death penalties these fellows instituted, there is no substitute for
reading the Code of Justinian itself. An English translation can be
found online for those who wish to start the journey.5
I learned most of the history behind Luther and Melanchton
while doing my doctoral research a few years back. The settlement
from the Diet of Speyer 1529 is found in the masterful work by
G. H. Williams, The Radical Reformation (Kirksville, MO: True-
man State University Press, 1992 [1962]), p. 355. Their use of Jus-
tinian to justify executing anabaptists is found in Martin Brecht,
Martin Luther: The Preservation of the Church, 1532–1546, Trans.
James L. Schaaf (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1993), pp.
36–37, and John S. Oyer, Lutheran Reformers Against Anabaptists:
Luther, Melanchthon, and Menius and the Anabaptists of Central
Germany (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1964), pp. 173–174.
4. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_pagans_in_the_
late_Roman_Empire.
5. The relevant part can be fond at http://www.constitution.org/sps/
sps12.htm; the whole Corpus juris civlis is at http://www.constitution.org/sps/
sps.htm. Both links are active as of January 28, 2016.
Bibliographic Essay 145
If there is any work I have failed to acknowledge, I can only
plead forgiveness. I can certainly think of no others at this point,
but I hope the spirit of this little essay shows I am more than
willing to acknowledge those from whom I have freely borrowed
and benefited. If I have forgotten any, I humbly repent. Further,
all my influences will be relieved to know that whatever errors
persist in my work do not derive from them in any way. I claim
them for my own.
Finally, readers must not mistake this brief exculpatory essay
for a recommended reading list. For that you must visit my arti-
cle “A Christian Reconstruction reading list” found at http://
americanvision.org/10858/christian-reconstruction-reading-
list/ for just a start. Do not be shocked if updates to this list fol-
low, so visit frequently.
Scripture Index
Genesis 22:1 95 18:1–18 94
12:1–3 44 22:2 95 18:20 94
12:7 44 22:3 95, 96 18:22 14, 64
18:25 83 22:4 76, 95 18:22–24 94
38:8–10 64 22:19 65, 94 18:23 65, 94
49:10 45 22:20 51, 54, 58 18:25 48
22:28 91 18:28 48
Exodus 23:1–9 98 19:18 3
19:12–13 60 23:7 98 19:19 45
20 28, 72 23:13 90 19:29 94
20:5–6 28 23:32 90 19:32 91
20:8–11 90 24 28 20 62
20:12 49 25–30 28 20:1–5 99
21:1 72, 73 34:15–16 90 20:2 60
21–23 28, 72 20:6 99
21:12–14 92 Leviticus 20:9 90
21:15 13, 90 1:9 53 20:10 61, 62
21:16 92 1:13 53 20:13 14, 64, 94
21:17 90 1:17 53 20:15–16 65, 94
21:18–25 92 6:1–5 95 20:22 48
21:22–25 92 6:4–5 76 20:22–24 99
21:23–25 74 14 46 20:27 60
21:29–30 92 15 46(2) 23:3 90
21:29–36 92 18 18 24:10–16 60
146
Scripture Index 147
24:17 92 16:18 91 Joshua
24:19–22 92 17:2–5 51, 54, 7 53, 57
24:23 60 58, 137 15–21 46
24:24 75 17:5 60
25 46 17:6 93 1 Samuel
26 99 17:7 93 15 32, 53
27:28 57 17:14–20 90 16 32
Numbers 19:5 93
15:31–36 60 19:6–19 14 Psalms
21:1–3 52 19:16–21 93 19:7–11 72–73
21:3 57 19:21 74 19:9 2, 71,
33:54 46 20 33, 94 72(2)
33:55–56 99 20:16–18 52 25:13 48
35:6–34 46 20:17 57 37:9 48
36:5–9 46 21:1–9 46 37:11 48
21:18–21 58, 60, 90 37:22 48
Deuteronomy 21:21 58 119:92 1
2:30–34 52 22:5 94 119:147 1
3:1–6 52 22:8 92
4:5–8 83 22:21 59 Proverbs
6:4 3 22:22 61, 62 6:30–31 95, 96
6:7–9 91 22:22–23 60 28:2 84
7:2 52 23:17 94
7:25 60 24:1–5 63
Isaiah
7:26 52 2:2–4 87
24:4 48
7:28 57 65:17–25 88–89
24:7 92
11:19–21 91 24:10–11 93
12:29–31 99
Jeremiah
25:1–3 96–97
3 61
13 53, 54, 58 25:5–6 62
31:31–34 6, 56
13:1–17 53 25:5–10 46
33 3
13:6–11 60 25:13–16 97
13:9 93 27:21 65 Hosea
13:16 53, 57 28–29 99 1 61
15:12–18 97
Matthew Romans 3:16 44
5:5 48 4:13 49 3:19 44, 62(2)
5:17 66 7:12 2 3:21–26 34
5:19 103 7:14 2 3:27–29 47
5:38 77 7:16 2 4–5 36
5:38–42 77–78 7:18 2 4:1–7 34
6:10 49 8:4 105 4:3 35
15:1–9 90 8:9 2 4:10 35
22:37–40 3 8:13 105 4:21–31 48
25:14–30 103 9:3 57 5:1–6 36
28:18 48, 101 13 4 5:22–25 105
28:18–20 15, 100, 13:3–4 8
102 13:8–10 2 Ephesians
28:20 15 15:14–19 105 2:8–9 8
15:16 105 2:10 8
Mark 2:11–22 48
2:2–10 63 1 Corinthians 2:15 49
7:1–13 90 2:14–15 104–105 2:19–22 47, 48
7:11 90 3:16 47, 48 6:2–3 49
6:1–8 113
Luke 6:11 105 Colossians
4:16–21 48 6:19–20 48 2 36
12:3 57, 104 2:8–15 37
John 15:25–26 101 2:16–23 37
1:12–13 48 16:22 57(2) 2:17 40
3:16 21–22
14–16 4 2 Corinthians 2 Thessalonians
14:15 4 3 105 2:13 105
14:21–24 4–5 3:3–10 56–57
15:9–14 5 6:14–18 47 1 Timothy
1 10
Acts Galatians 1:3–11 10–11, 15
16:6, 7 32 1:8–9 57(2) 1:4 11
2:14 36 1:8 69
Scripture Index 149
1:8–10 41 2:5 48
1:8–11 70
1:9 13 1 John
1:11 14 5:2–3 5
Hebrews Revelation
2:1 71 3:16 48
2:1–2 14, 70, 17–18 61
86(2) 21:1–8 48
2:2 74
3–4 47
6:13 12
7:12 42
8 3
8:5 38
8:7–13 6–7
8:8–12 55–56
8:10 41, 43,
105
8:13 40, 47, 71
9:1–12 39–40
9:8 40
9:10 40
10 3
10:1 38, 54
10:12–13 101
10:15–18 7, 56
10:26–29 54, 57
12:22–24 49
1 Peter
1:2 105
2:4–10 47

The Bounds of Love 2nd Ed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Bounds of Love 2nd Ed

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Bounds of Love 2nd Ed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Bounds

W hile there are scores of volumes on God’s law (“Theon-

T he word “Theonomy” comes from two Greek words, theos

Love and law

Oh how I love your law! It is my meditation all the

Your righteousness is righteous forever, and your

Owe no one anything, except to love each other,

The summary of the law

But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced

Jesus says that the greatest commandment is to love God,

Whoever has my commandments and keeps them,

He repeats the lesson:

As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you.

The author of this Gospel reiterates the same teaching in his

By this we know that we love the children of God,

So we can see that love is not a new law or a replacement for

Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD,

The author of the book of Hebrews quotes this passage twice

In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first

The same epistle quotes the same passage directly again in

Uses of the law

This is God’s minister and he must execute God’s wrath. This

New Testament mandate

As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia,

Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it

I t is unfortunate that theonomists in the past have had to

The problem of theological definition

Theonomy is the biblical teaching that Mosaic

This makes it clear up front that Theonomy is 1) about moral

M y concise definition of Theonomy raises some

Biblical categories for biblical law

1. Westminster Confession of Faith, 19.4.

2. See Harold O. J. Brown, “Preventive War,” in War: Four Christian Views,

Is the law then contrary to the promises of God?

Now before faith came, we were held captive under

A couple things stand out here: first, there are no catego-

For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm

Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept cir-

This type of behavior is where the term Judaizing comes from.

Paul is referring here to the same feasts and Sabbaths. In

Hebrews and the “shadows”

They [the Old Covenant priests] serve a copy and

The letter reiterates this concept in chapter 10:

For since the law has but a shadow of the good

These passages make it clear enough that the “shadows” refer

These preparations having thus been made, the

But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the

The argument here is the argument of the letter to the

I f we are going to assert that the Old Testament judicial

Continuity and discontinuity

Biblical principles of interpretation

Now the promises were made to Abraham and to

Why then the law? It was added because of trans-

The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the

This famous prophecy indicated that the promised seed would

Repealed and replaced in Christ

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ

But to all who did receive him, who believed in

Likewise, Christ is the terminus of the land laws. He is the

For the promise to Abraham and his offspring