Some people on Facebook responded to my previous article “New Covenant Theology and God’s Law” that posted September 3, 2024. Here’s one example:
We have Gods law written on our hearts. We do not need ministry of death and condemnation brought by tablets of stone. Where there is law, sin multiplies. We know what is good and what is wrong. We feel it within. All of us. Everything that Is not of faith is sin.
My response:
And what law is that? Can you show it to me? What if someone disagrees with what you claim is the law written on your heart? “I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them” (Heb. 10:16). Are these laws different from God’s written laws? “We feel it”? What if someone “feels” differently? Why did God give a written law if “we feel it within”?
Do you remember Debby Boone, the daughter of Pat Boone, and her hit song “You Light Up My Life” (1977)? “It held the No. 1 position on the Billboard Hot 100 chart for ten consecutive weeks in 1977 and topped Record World magazine’s Top 100 Singles Chart for a record 13 weeks.” Do you remember the controversy concerning these lyrics? “It can’t be wrong / When it feels so right.”
Joseph Brooks who wrote the lyrics was “accused of a series of casting-couch rapes. He was indicted in 2009, but killed himself on May 22, 2011, before his trial.” Maybe what he did felt so right. Feelings are subjective. Someone might say that our feelings are governed by the law written on our heart. We’re back to a fixed law. What’s its source? If we obey that law, is it by “faith”?
Another person wrote, “Love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself.” I don’t disagree. This command (law) is found in several places in the NT (Matt. 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27; Rom. 13:9). How do you know if you are loving God? By keeping His commandments: “For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome” (1 John 5:3). Where is the command to “love your neighbor as yourself” found? In the law! “‘You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD” (Lev. 19:18).
Paul freely used Old Covenant law in the NT. He applied a law about the mistreatment of animals (Deut. 25:4) to “the laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim. 5:18). See an expanded application in 1 Corinthians 9:7-10 where Paul references what is written in “the law of Moses” (v. 9) and broadens its application by stating that it was written “for our sake” (v. 10).
He makes a similar application from the OT about different animals being yoked together for work (Deut. 22:10) with believers and unbelievers being bound together, that is, being “unequally yoked” (ἑτεροζυγέω=hetero [differently] + zugeó [yoked]) (2 Cor. 6:14).
The Old Testament is filled with such applicational laws that did not pass away with the coming of the New Covenant. That’s why Paul could write the following: “All Scripture is God breathed [θεόπνευστος] and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
It’s important to remind readers that laws regulating the sanctuary and covering for sin, all of which pointed to the redemptive work of Jesus, were fulfilled in Jesus. Food regulations, circumcision, the blood of bulls and goats, the priesthood, tabernacle, the physical temple, etc. passed away. Greg Bahnsen addressed this and similar issues in various articles and books since the publication of his Theonomy in Christian Ethics that was first published in 1977. He devotes a chapter to the topic in his book No Other Standard: Theonomy and Its Critics.
No Other Standard
No Other Standard is Dr. Bahnsen’s response to various books, articles, and other critiques that have circulated over the years. Bahnsen skillfully takes his critics’ arguments apart, showing that they have either misrepresented his position or misrepresented the Bible. Line by line, point by point, he shows that they have not understood his arguments and have also not understood the vulnerability of their own logical and theological positions. Joe Louis once said of an ill-fated scheduled opponent in the ring, “He can run, but he can’t hide.” Likewise, Bahnsen’s critics. No Other Standard corners them all, and one by one, floors them.
Buy NowReproof, correction, and training in righteousness are moral categories. Paul commended Timothy because “from childhood” he had “known the sacred writings” (v. 15). (Have they become less than sacred?) Paul is referring to all the Old Covenant by using the terms “sacred writings” (ἱερὰ γράμματα) and “scripture” (γραφὴ). They were and still are applicable today, some in different forms.
What about Hebrews 8:13? “When He said, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is about to disappear.” If the moral law from the OT was no longer applicable except those laws repeated in the NT which most people did not have access to, then why did God promise to put His “laws into their minds and write them upon their hearts” (8:10) in the New Covenant? What laws are these? They seem to be biblical laws— “elementary principles of the oracles of God”—that were to become second nature by way of study, practice, and application (Heb. 5:11-14).
The writer to the Hebrews explains in what way the first covenant was “obsolete … and growing old” and “near [ἐγγὺς] to disappear” (8:13). He was referring to the “regulations of divine worship and the earthly sanctuary” (9:1). Jesus is the Word that “became flesh and tabernacled” among the Jews during His earthly ministry (John 1:14). He is the lamb of God (John 1:29, 36), the temple (2:13-2), and the once for all sacrifice (Heb. 10:10). These are the laws that passed away because they found their fulfillment in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ:
But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, He went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but He entered the Most Holy Place once for all by His own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that He has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant (Heb. 9:11-15).
There is nothing written about the passing away of the moral application of the law to the individual and society at large. The moral law was designed for the nations (Deut. 4:1-8).
A young woman mentions shrimp and Christian apologist Frank Turek mentions bacon. The NT is clear that Jesus declared all foods to be clean (Mark 7:18-23). Peter was given similar instructions about unclean foods by a direct revelation from God: “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean” (Acts 10:15; 11:9). To emphasize the point, the command was given three times (v. 16).
It’s downright simplistic to claim that only those laws repeated in the NT are applicable under the New Covenant. This does not mean that it’s always easy to apply God’s law in today’s world, but it is part of wisdom to do so.
Charles Colson wrote the chapter “The Kingdom of God and Human Kingdoms” in the book Transforming Our World:
Recently I addressed the Texas legislature…. I told them that the only answer to the crime problem is to take nonviolent criminals out of our prisons and make them pay back their victims with restitution. This is how we can solve the prison crowding problem.
The amazing thing was that afterwards they came up to me one after another and said things like, “That’s a tremendous idea. Why hasn’t anyone thought of that?” I had the privilege of saying to them, “Read Exodus 22. It is only what God said to Moses on Mount Sinai thousands of years ago.”[1]
Colson did not take the legislators to natural or Noahic law. Rather, he referred them to the Mosaic legislation, a set of laws that dispensationalists and some preterists tell us were unique and only applied to Israel. Thomas Ice and H. Wayne House claim the following and exhibit commandment schizophrenia like Frank Turek:
The Christian is to love the law of God. Grace does not free the believer from obedience to the will of God. However, Christians are not under the expression of the law as it was given to Israel. Instead, we may use the Mosaic legislation as examples of how we may respond individually and corporately; we main gain wisdom from it. Christians are, however, to obey the will of God as it is expressed in the New Testament—the law of Christ—and the law revealed in the Adamic and Noahic covenants.[2]
While “Christians are not under the expression of the law as it was given to Israel, [but] we may use the Mosaic legislation as examples of how we may respond individually and corporately.” Does this mean Christians can adopt a “take-it-or-leave-it” approach? Does this mean that while the law prohibits having sex with animals, there is no moral obligation to follow that prohibition because it’s found in the OT? House and Ice maintain that “wisdom” must be used to determine how the Mosaic legislation should be applied under the New Covenant. The authors never show how this works in practice or how their “wisdom” approach would be different from that of a theonomist.
House Divided: The Break-Up of Dispensational Theology
The book that started a revolution. Bahnsen and Gentry stir the hornet's nest with this comprehensive refutation of Dispensationalism. The two pillars of law and eschatology are dealt with evenly, fairly—and most importantly—biblically. Bahnsen takes on the law sections, while Gentry handles the eschatology. Dispensationalism teaches that God has two distinct plans: one for Israel and one for the Church. Bahnsen and Gentry show clearly that God never intended or taught about separate plans. Quite the opposite, God's plan for Israel was but the first phase of His plan for the world. Jesus was both God's plan and His solution before the foundation of the world (1 Peter 1:17-21).
Buy NowIn addition, there is no comprehensive “law of Christ” in the New Testament.[3] Jesus continually referenced the existing revealed law that preceded His incarnation. He condemned the religious leaders for “nullifying” the law of God, “neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men…. You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition” (Mark 7:8-9). What “commandment of God”? The Fifth Commandment (7:10). Jesus also appeals to the Adamic Covenant regarding marriage (Matt. 19:3-6) and combines it with elements of the Mosaic legislation (19:7-8; Deut. 24:1-4), putting them on equal authoritative footing.
One last point. The Apostle Paul offers a succinct understanding of how God’s law—all of it—is to be understood and used:
But the goal of our commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from a sincere faith. Some people have strayed from these things and have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions. But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and worldly, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral [fornicators], homosexuals, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted (1 Tim. 1:5-11).
The Christian might argue that Paul is only addressing “the lawless and rebellious” as if Christians are not sometimes lawless and rebellious. It wasn’t that long ago that Christians often supported the slave trade even though Scripture condemns the practice of “manstealing” (Ex. 21:16). “George Keith published An Exhortation & Caution to Friends Concerning Buying or Keeping of Negroes that emphasized the Mosaic prohibition against manstealing (Exod. 21:16— ‘he that stealeth a Man and selleth him, if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to Death’)…. One non-Quaker biblical protest did come from Puritan New England when in 1700 Judge Samuel Sewall published a pamphlet entitled The Selling of Joseph. Sewall too cited the Golden Rule and the Mosaic prohibition against man-stealing, while he also explained that ‘the curse of Canaan’ from Genesis 9:25 had nothing to do with contemporary Africa or modern slavery.”[4]
Even Ted Koppel seemed to agree with Colson and against some dispensationalists and preterists:
What Moses brought down from Mt. Sinai were not the Ten Suggestions. They are commandments. Are, not were. The sheer brilliance of the Ten Commandments is that they codify in a handful of words acceptable human behavior, not just for then or now, but for all time. Language evolves. Power shifts from one nation to another. Messages are transmitted with the speed of light. Man erases one frontier after another. And yet we and our behavior and the commandments governing that behavior remain the same.[5]
All law reflects some worldview. Law is an inescapable concept. Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Every religion consists of moral precepts, and of dogmas.”[6] There is a corollary to Jefferson’s observation: “Every non-religion consists of moral precepts, and of dogmas.” Jefferson himself proved this by compiling a moral philosophy in his Literary Commonplace Book. Even the most lawless person has his own sense of justice. We hear people talk about “prison justice.” Prisoners will judge other prisoners, especially those involved in child abuse cases. There are some crimes that even murderers will not tolerate. Someone is ultimately in charge: the sovereign individual where “every man does what is right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6), a single ruler who claims a “divine right,” the call for a political savior by the people best exemplified in the way Israel asked for a “king like all the other nations” (8:22-23; 1 Sam. 8), a “we the people mentality” where the decisions of the majority become law, or placing the final arbitration of what is right in the hands of nine Supreme Court justices where only five are needed to change a law.
The Law of the Covenant
If we take a man-centered approach to these laws, we might say that the purpose of this legislation is only to ensure human prosperity. Such an approach to the law of God misses the most basic point. These laws show us God's own genuine personal care for His world, and as such these laws cannot be altered by human whim. To be sure, the Bible is man-oriented, and thus obedience to these laws will improve human life; but the laws are God's, and cannot be changed by man. Thus, as we examine the laws in Exodus 21-23, our first concern must be the glory of God, not whether these laws seem right to us sinful men. If we start with God, we will soon see how these laws also improve human life.
Buy NowPresident Harry S. Truman voiced the common and prevailing sentiment of his day:
The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don’t think we comprehend that enough these days. If we don’t have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody.[7]
We cannot live within the fluid boundaries of legal relativism. There must be a definitive and final legal standard of appeal to justify moral decisions at the personal and governmental levels. If not, then one judge’s opinion is as good (or as bad) as another. “Everyone did what was right in their own eyes” (Judges 17:6).
The debate the applicability of the whole law of God for Christians has been dealt with in numerous places. Before you critique the position, learn what all the factors are. The following materials will help:
· Greg L. Bahnsen, By This Standard: The Authority of God’s Law Today.
· Greg L. Bahnsen, No Other Standard: Theonomy and Its Critics.
· Greg L. Bahnsen, “M.G. Kline on Theonomic Politics: An Evaluation.”[8]
· Greg L. Bahnsen and Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., House Divided: The Break-Up of Dispensational Theology.
· Gary North, ed., Theonomy: An Informed Response .
· Gary North, Victim’s Rights: The Biblical View of Civil Justice.
· James B. Jordan, The Law of the Covenant: An Exposition of Exodus 21-23.
[1] Charles Colson, “The Kingdom of God and Human Kingdoms,” Transforming Our World: A Call to Action, ed. James M. Boice (Portland, OR: Multnomah, 1988), 154-155.
[2] H. Wayne House and Thomas Ice, Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse? (Portland, OR: Multnomah Press,1988), 118-119. For a response, see Greg L. Bahnsen and Kenneth Gentry, Jr., House Divided: The Breakup of Dispensational Theology(Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, [1989], 2022).
[3] For a discussion of the “law of Christ,” see my Publisher’s Introduction to H.B. Clark’s Biblical Law: The Text of the Statutes, Ordinances, and Judgments of the Bible (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision Press, [1944] 2010).
[4] Mark A. Knoll, “The Bible and Slavery in Colonial America,” Text and Canon Institute (July 18, 2022). See “Gary DeMar on Slavery, Abolitionism, and their Legacy.” Also see James B. Jordan’s “Slavery in Biblical Perspective.”
[5] Ted Koppel, The Last Word, Commencement Address at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina (May 10, 1987). Quoted in Robert H. Bork, The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law (New York: The Free Press, 1989), 164.
[6] Quoted in Paul Grimley Kuntz, The Ten Commandments in History: Mosaic Paradigms for a Well-Ordered Society (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), 170.
[7] Harry S. Truman, Harry S. Truman: Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States Containing the Public Messages, Speeches, and Statements of the President—January 1 to December 31, 1950 (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1965), 197.
[8] Greg L. Bahnsen, “M. G. Kline on Theonomic Politics: An Evaluation of His Reply,” Journal of Christian Reconstruction, VI:2 (Winter, 1979-1980).