...

Interpreting Old Testament Law ¹

How then do we apply the Bible to modern society? Theonomists are convinced that the Old Testament law even in its details is applicable to modern society, while some of their opponents are convinced that the life, death, and resurrection of Christ introduced a new era in which the Old Testament law is no longer directly binding.² The issue is not easy to resolve because it depends partly on the hermeneutical frameworks and the sets of questions that one has when one approaches texts of the OT.³ For simplicity I confine myself to comparing theonomy with only one kind of antithetical position, namely the "intrusionist" ethics of Meredith G. Kline.⁴ Kline argues that Old Testament social and political law is not immediately applicable to us because it was tailored to the special situation of Israel. Israel as a holy nation prefigured the holiness of God's heavenly kingdom and the holiness belonging to the consummation of all things. For example, the wars against the Canaanites prefigured the Second Coming, when Christ wages a final war against all his enemies (Rev. 19:11-21). Special penalties were appropriate for Israel because of its unique role as a prefigurement of Christ's kingdom. Ethical practices belonging most properly to the kingdom of God in its final manifestation "intruded" in certain ways into the practice of Israel.

To see in action the differences between these two systems, theonomy and intrusionist ethics, let us consider a particular example. Lev. 19:19 says, "You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed." This commandment is part of the Bible. It is God's expression of his character and his will for us. The commandment is therefore relevant to us, as part of the totality of the expression of the will of God. But just how is it relevant? Does it perhaps express a universal standard for human agricultural procedure, based on the creational principle that God made each kind of plant a distinct kind? Or does it symbolically express one element of the holy separation that Israel was to practice as a distinct "kingdom of priests" (Exod. 19:6)? Israel's observance of special distinctions between clean and unclean foods and the observance of special festival days functioned to mark Israel as a holy nation, specially set apart for God's blessing and called to a special holy service. Does this particular statute function as one instance of this special separation? If so, the statute has a lesson for the church, since the church is "a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people" (1 Pet. 2:9). The food laws that separated Jew from Gentile have ceased to function on a literal plane as the symbolic mark of the holy community (Eph. 2:11-22), but the same principle of holy separation still binds the church (2 Cor. 6:14-18). We are not to mix good and evil. The way in which we observe the principle of Lev. 19:19 is simply adapted to the new circumstances introduced by the life, death, and resurrection of Christ (Eph. 2:16).

How do we decide how Lev. 19:19 applies to us? The hermeneutical framework advocated by theonomy tells us to expect the whole Old Testament law to be binding on us. God's character is always the same and Jesus explicitly affirms the abiding validity of the law (Matt. 5:17-20). The hermeneutical framework advocated by Meredith G. Kline and other intrusionists tells us that the Mosaic law as a total system is no longer binding on us. The Mosaic law was specially designed as an instrument to convey typological truth concerning Israel as a holy nation. Since this typological function is fulfilled in Christ and in the consummation of all things, the literal observance of the law in its details is abrogated (Eph. 2:15).

Actually, both theonomic and intrusionist interpretation, when understood in their very best form, include important qualifications. Bahnsen in advocating theonomy takes note of the changes due to differences in culture and due to the advance in the redemptive plan of God.⁵ Kline in advocating an intrusionist approach indicates that there is continuity in the faith-norms of the Old Testament, in some of its life-norms, and in the principles of God's justice.⁶ But such qualifications are sometimes minimized or forgotten by enthusiastic followers of these approaches. For the sake of illustration, it is actually better for us to deal to some extent with more stereotyped, popularized versions of the two positions. We thereby expose the general tendencies of the positions, without concerning ourselves immediately with all the details.

Neither of these frameworks by itself can solve all our problems. Theonomy rightly insists on continuity based on the unchanging moral character of God. And in principle it recognizes that the New Testament explicitly declares that some laws (e.g. food laws) need no longer be observed literally because they have been fulfilled in Christ.⁷ But because its up-front emphasis is so heavily on continuity, many followers of theonomy find themselves under heavy pressure to insist on straight-line continuity of application for all the Mosaic laws except those that are explicitly altered in the New Testament. Lev. 19:19 is never explicitly altered in the New Testament, and so by this reasoning we must assume that it remains in force.

In fact, Bahnsen and many other leading representatives of theonomy think that Lev. 19:19 is not to be literally observed.⁸ My point is merely that their explicitly articulated hermeneutical principles push in the other direction. For example, in a summary Bahnsen lists as one basic principle, "We should presume that Old Testament standing laws continue to be morally binding in the New Testament, unless they are rescinded or modified by further revelation."⁹ Strict, wooden application of this principle would appear to imply continuation of Lev. 19:19 in force.

But it could also be argued that Lev. 19:19 is to be included with the food laws as a ceremonial ordinance. Bahnsen indicates his awareness of this possibility in principle when he says, "The New Covenant also supercedes [sic] the Old Covenant shadows, thereby changing the application of sacrificial, purity, and `separation' principles, redefining the people of God, and altering the significance of the promised land."¹⁰ Doubtless Bahnsen would consider the principles of Lev. 19:19 to be among the "separation" principles whose application is altered. But how do we tell in practice what counts as a "separation" principle? How do we tell what elements in Mosaic statutes are shadows and in what way they are shadows? How do we tell what is ceremonial and what is moral? We get some significant clues concerning these questions from the New Testament, but what do we do in a case like Lev. 19:19 that is not explicitly alluded to in the New Testament?

For several reasons it is not sufficient merely to observe that keeping types of seed separate is one kind of separation. For one thing, all the laws in Lev. 19, including those that are most obviously permanent and moral in character, function in some way to mark Israel as holy and separate from the other nations (18:1-5; 19:2). Second, it would be quite easy to argue that keeping the types of seed distinct is a principle of separation based on creation, and therefore of permanent validity. Third, the immediate context of Lev. does not provide decisive information about the permanency of this statute. The verse 19:19 contains two other statutes with similar concerns. But the same possible questions arise concerning the permanence or temporary character of all three statutes. Lev. 19 as a whole contains a large number of ordinances by which Israel is to be holy (19:2). Israel's holiness was partially of a symbolical, ceremonial kind; and sure enough we find some ordinances in Lev. 19 that have usually been regarded as ceremonial (e.g. 19:5-8, 23-25, 26a, 27-28). But Israel's holiness also involved moral purity. Mixed in with these ceremonial ordinances are other ordinances partly of a practical kind (19:9-10; of course with moral implications) and partly of a moral kind (19:15-18, 26b, 29). In the verse right next to verse 19 is the great command to love your neighbor as yourself (verse 18).

Finally, some of the penal laws given to Moses involve a principle of separation, as we have seen in chapters 10-13. The punishment for false worshipers, false prophets, and blasphemers maintains Israel as a holy community, in its purity and separation from idolatry. The punishment for homosexual acts preserves before Israel the separation of sexes in their roles towards one another. The key book Theonomy assures us that the Mosaic penalties for such practices are universally binding.¹¹ But how do we know that some distinction between penalties regarding special purity and penalties regarding general offenses might be at work here just as it might be at work among the statutes of Lev. 19? My arguments in previous chapters show that the Old Testament as the foreshadowing revelation of Christ is richer than what we have been led to expect. In particular, it does indeed contain penalties qualified by the special holiness of Israel (chapter 10). We must not jump to quick, overgeneralized conclusions about the status of all penalties whatsoever.

Bahnsen in one place distinguishes "between laws reflecting God's justice and those based upon His redemptive purposes--i.e., moral law and restorative law, the former defining sin while the latter aims at salvation from sin."¹² The former laws are permanent while the latter change in form with the changes in redemptive epochs. This distinction is useful up to a point, in that it provides a biblically based rationale for why some rules are permanent and other are not. But the distinction is not always easy to use in practice. Bahnsen himself indicates that we are not dealing here with a "watertight" distinction but only with a significant diversity in "first order functions of the two classes of commands."¹³ Typically Mosaic laws involve both purposes in inextricable unity. All the laws point forward to Christ, both to his justice and to his redemption. Every law including Lev. 19:19 defines some sin at least with respect to Israel. Every law expresses God's justice, inasmuch as the special ceremonial laws all express in symbolic form the absolute holiness of God and the necessity of separation from evil doing. In a broad sense every law has redemptive purpose, because the law is intended to be a slave master leading to Christ (Gal. 3:24-25). Laws that are primarily moral may include a note about salvation (Deut. 5:15).

To distinguish their primary function Bahnsen notes that God's moral standards reveal our condemnation while ceremonial law shows "the means of salvation per se."¹⁴ But this legitimate distinction about first order functions helps us least in just those cases where there might be doubt. For example, if refraining from sowing with two kinds of seed is indeed a universal agricultural principle, literally binding on all farmers, then the verse states something that is a sin for all times and places. It primarily functions to set forth a definition of sin and to condemn us for its violation. If on the other hand the verse expresses a principle of Israel's special separation for holiness, it primarily functions to point to the holiness of Israel and the tabernacle which in turns points to the final holiness of Christ in his sacrifice. To which category does this statute actually belong? If we know beforehand how to classify this statute, the classification will tell us its function. But in actual practice we tend to determine the classification of the statute by first understanding its function.

I think that Bahnsen understands his distinction in the same way that I do. We are supposed to determine the classification of any statute by first understanding its primary function. Understanding its function reveals whether it primarily defines sin in a universally binding way or whether it primarily articulates the way of salvation in a way conditioned by the redemptive historical context. We thereby determine in what respects it is permanently relevant to our redemptive historical situation. The chief remaining difficulty is that it is not always easy to determine the primary function, particularly because several functions may sometimes be interwoven.

Theonomy at its best takes considerable note of discontinuities introduced by redemptive history and in particular by the coming of Christ. But because it is so interested in learning abiding principles of justice from the Old Testament, it focuses primarily on those aspects that are unchanging. The burden of proof is then placed on the person who would assert that there is change. When a framework of this kind rigidifies, as it sometimes does among followers of the movement, people insist on carrying over whatever is not decisively shown to be altered.

If we follow a rigid form of theonomist hermeneutical framework, we cannot evade the conclusion: no one text in the Old Testament or New Testament explicitly or decisively indicates the abolition of literal observance of Lev. 19:19, and therefore it continues in force. We are bound to observe it. But the real question is not whether we observe it but how. What does the text enjoin? For what purpose? Does God express a permanent agricultural principle or a principle of Israelite symbolic holiness? No one text in the Old Testament or New Testament explicitly or decisively indicates the answer in either direction. In particular, nothing proves conclusively that this statute is not ceremonial. The principle of preserving distinctions and separations here may be of the same ceremonial order as the principle of clean and unclean foods.

The fact that the distinction of seeds has some basis in creation does not really count against this possibility. When Israel maintained distinctions between clean and unclean foods, she had to depend every moment on the order of creation that guaranteed the existence and preservation of distinct kinds of animals. But the separation between clean and unclean was nevertheless a temporary measure reexpressing a principle of creation on a heightened symbolic plane until the coming of fulfillment. Of course, in the case of food laws we are confident that we have understood correctly because there are some explicit New Testament passages on the subject (Mark 7:19; Col. 2:21; 1 Tim. 4:3-5). But what about other Old Testament laws? Can we be sure that the New Testament will mention explicitly every case where an alteration of observance of law is appropriate? Might not there be room for deciding some issues on the basis of more general context of Old Testament and New Testament teaching together? We presume to dictate to God the form that the New Testament must take if we rigidly require the New Testament to mention every case before we are ready to admit that it may be ceremonial.

In the light of my earlier observations in the body of this book, readers may be able to guess my actual view on Lev. 19:19. This statute is indeed a temporary law enjoining a special symbolic orderliness (see chapter 7). Hyperbolical care for orderliness symbolizes and reinforces the general orderliness of the law and the order-creating character of God the law-giver. Orderliness is maintained by distinguishing not only types of animals, but also types of seed. Moreover, certain types of mixture, such as the garments of the high priest (composed of gold, linen, and wool), the anointing oil, and the incense are associated with holiness and are therefore forbidden to ordinary Israelites (Exod. 30:22-38). If a field is used for both vineyard and grain, its produce is holy (Deut. 22:9). Israel is obliged to maintain these special distinctions as part of the general practice of distinguishing the holy and the common, and this practice in turn is necessary because of the presence of the holiness of God and the holiness of the tabernacle in her midst.

By such distinctions Israel foreshadows the ultimate distinctiveness of the life-giving order that comes through Jesus Christ. The temporary symbolic character of Lev. 19:19 is suggested even in Mosaic times by three factors: (a) it is elsewhere specifically connected with the requirements of holiness (Deut. 22:9); (b) it is not directly deducible from the two great principles of loving God and loving neighbor; (c) it apparently introduces a restriction on the wide-scope dominion given to human beings in creation (Gen. 1:26-28).

My concern, however, is not to answer questions with respect to Lev. 19:19 but rather to examine how we go about obtaining answers concerning any Mosaic text. A general recipe of "assume continuity until proven otherwise" will not get us far.

With this example in mind, we might think that the safest course is to follow the intrusionists in denying the direct applicability of the Old Testament. But difficulties of a converse kind await us. Does our hermeneutical principle say that no Mosaic statute is binding unless specifically reiterated in the New Testament? It follows that Lev. 19:19 is not binding. But then it becomes all too easy to miss the binding principle exemplified in Lev. 19:19, namely the principle of separating from evil (2 Cor. 6:14-18). Crudely used, this framework threatens to forbid us access to the divine wisdom and justice displayed in the Old Testament. Moreover, it makes us unable to follow the apostles when they argue ethically on the basis not of their own immediate God-given authority but of the Mosaic law (for example, Eph. 6:2).¹⁵

In the argument above I made a rigid form of theonomist hermeneutics look bad by choosing Lev. 19:19 as the test case. But I might make rigid intrusionist hermeneutics look bad by choosing some other passage. Some passages like Lev. 19:15 and 18:23 that are not directly reiterated in the New Testament express abiding principles, and it would be easier for our sinful nature to evade their requirements if we eliminated them and tried to deduce everything from the two great commandments of loving God and our neighbor.

How do we avoid some of the dangers that have cropped up in this examination of Lev. 19:19? Let us stand back from the particular example and reflect on the general principles involved in arriving at conclusions in matters of ethics.

We may start with one of the theses of theonomy. God's word is the proper standard for evaluating all human action, including the actions of government officials and the laws made by civil legislators. As John M. Frame has argued, God's Lordship implies that he specifies the standards for all evaluation, that he is always personally present to us as the one to whom we must respond in a personal relationship of love, and that he controls our situation so as to create opportunities and responsibilities towards our environment.¹⁶

Corresponding to these three ways in which God rules over us are three perspectives in terms of which we may approach ethical questions. The first perspective, the normative perspective, focuses on the rules in Scripture, God's norms for human conduct. The second perspective, the attitudinal or personal perspective, focuses on personal attitudes. The third, situational perspective focuses on what is best for our situation.¹⁷ From the normative perspective, we must conform to God's standards as expressed in Scripture. From an attitudinal or personal perspective, we must be motivated by love for God. From a situational perspective, we must promote the praise and honor of God in our situation.

Within a biblical world view these three perspectives ultimately harmonize with one another, because God is the source of all. Moreover, each perspective when rightly understood encompasses the others. The normative perspective encompasses the personal, because God's law (the norm) instructs us concerning the importance of the heart and the motivation of love. The normative perspective encompasses the situational, because God's norms instruct us on the necessity of taking account of the situation (e.g. 1 Cor. 8:7-10). The situational perspective encompasses the normative, because God is the most significant person in our situation and God's laws are the most significant ethical facts about our situation. We cannot possibly honor God in our situation without taking into account what he says about it. The situational perspective encompasses the personal because our own dispositions as well as the existence of other people and their needs are part of the situation to which we are called to respond.

Though the three perspectives harmonize in principle, human beings in their sinfulness have a tendency to distort the truth, and the possibilities for distortion are enhanced when they use only one perspective. For example, modern situation ethics blatantly distorts biblical truth. It one-sidedly uses a situational perspective to deny that God's norms are part of the definition of our situation, and that only by paying attention to the norms may we rightly judge what the consequences of our actions will be for the honor and praise of God. By contrast, the Pharisees of Jesus' day one-sidedly used a normative perspective. They appealed to a constant norm, the sabbath law, in order to show that Jesus broke the law. They failed to understand that the true intention of the sabbath law involved an adaptation in the case of special circumstances of human need (Luke 6:9-11; 13:15-16) and special authority (Luke 6:1-5).

The same dangers confront us. When using the normative perspective we may rightly observe that God's moral character is unchangeable and that therefore the moral norms are always the same. But then it is easy to overlook the fact that the special character of Israel as a holy nation involved the observance of ceremonial ordinances that expressed God's character and norms in a way adapted to a unique situation. Thus the theonomists run the danger of using the appeal to unchanging norms in order to prejudice the question of whether the great bulk of Mosaic legislation is adapted to the unique situation of Israel. In other words, they background the situational perspective, and this move may make them underestimate the difficulty and complexity of disentangling the abiding principle from the particularity of its application to Israel.

Conversely, when using the situational perspective we may rightly observe that all of God's word given to Israel was adapted to Israel's needs and situation. The Israelite nation lived with an agricultural, preindustrial economic and civic organization. More important, she lived in a situation before the coming of Christ, when she needed to enjoy the benefits of salvation in symbolic form before the salvation itself had been definitively accomplished or consummated. In such a redemptive-historical situation the entire geopolitical structure of the nation typologically embodied anticipations of Christ; covenant, king, priest, and Israel's corporate status as son (Exod. 4:23) all foreshadowed Christ's unique holy role. But when we concentrate on the situationally unique position of Israel, it is easy to overlook the fact that these very special arrangements foreshadowed a universally binding pattern, a permanent norm, namely the pattern of Christ's own righteousness and perfect fulfillment of the law. Thus the special character of the Israelite law simultaneously expresses universal norms. Intrusionists run the danger of using the appeal to the special situation of Israel in order to prejudice the question of whether we can find principles of universal justice in Mosaic statutes.¹⁸

We must also beware of relying too much on so-called "natural law," the natural sense of right and wrong impressed on our consciences. To do so is to misuse the personal perspective. It is true that even human beings without access to the written word of God have a sense of right and wrong (Rom. 1:32). But Scripture nowhere indicates that they thereby know more ethical principles than those revealed in the Bible. In fact, the opposite is the case. The Bible indicates that the Jews by their access to the written law know God's will in a privileged way (Rom. 2:17-22). We must recognize that human sin distorts our attitudes and our "natural" feelings. We must be ready to submit ourselves to Scripture over and over again as a remedy for sin.

We may show the effects of perspectives by examining the interpretation of Deut. 4:6-8.

Keep them and do them; for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the people, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, "Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people." For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as the LORD our God is to us, whenever we call upon him? And what great nation is there, that has statutes and ordinances so righteous as all this law which I set before you this day?

Theonomists commonly appeal to this text to show that the Mosaic law has world-wide relevance.¹⁹ It is obvious why theonomists should think that this text supports them. According to these verses the other nations and not only Israel can recognize the wisdom of these statutes and admit that they are "righteous" (4:8). The righteousness of Mosaic ordinances thus pertains not only to Israel but all other nations. When other nations have their eyes opened to the truth, the other nations want to have just such righteous laws and express admiration for Israel's wisdom. Mosaic laws thus express standards binding on all nations and not merely on Israel. Micah 4:2 picks up this same theme in the context of eschatological prophecy. "In the latter days" the house of the Lord will be established as the most prominent mountain, the nations will come to learn the law, and "out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem" (Micah 4:1-2). What the nations might potentially enjoy according to Deut. 4 they actually do come to enjoy in the time of fulfillment.

This argument looks very convincing until we realize that the framework of assumptions of theonomy has had a large input in influencing what we notice in these texts.²⁰ To concentrate on the normative perspective is to concentrate on the norms, standards, or rules. By definition, norms or rules are the same in every situation. Hence when we operate in this framework we are already predisposed to assume primarily continuity in space and time. Continuity in space implies that the same laws bind other places, that is, other nations besides Israel. Continuity in time implies that the same laws bind people at all times, past, present, and future.

But now suppose that we approach the same texts using the framework of intrusionists and the emphasis on the situational perspective. Immediately we have in the forefront of our minds the unique situation of Israel: Israel is the unique holy nation and a kingdom of priests with its shadowy typological institutions pointing forward to fulfillment. Within this hermeneutical framework, Deut. 4:6-8 appears to mean something quite different. The other nations admire Israel not only for the righteousness of her laws (4:8) but for the God who is so near to Israel whenever they call on him (verse 7), for the wisdom expressed as God reveals his character and salvific purposes uniquely to Israel, and for the land that God gave Israel as a gift (verse 5). That is to say, the nations do not notice the commandments merely as rules standing by themselves but as an expression of God's special communion with Israel. They understand the rules as what is wise for this special holy people, Israel. The nations are pictured not as saying, "We should have these same laws for ourselves," but "What a special God Israel has, what a special grace God has shown to Israel, and what wise statutes God has given them for their special situation. We would certainly want to have laws just like those if we were the special chosen nation. But unfortunately we are not the special chosen nation, so it is not immediately clear that we should exactly copy the laws of Israel in every case." A radical discontinuity in space exists between Israel and the other nations.

When the intrusionist framework comes to Micah 4:1-2 another difference is introduced. The "latter days" as the time of eschatological fulfillment means the revelation of the glory of God in a surpassing form (Isa. 40:5). Shadows are superseded by realities, and whatever is shadowy in the Mosaic law finds fulfillment in transformed fashion. In the New Testament era the fulfillment comes and the light of the revelation of the glory of God shines in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 4:6). Now it is clear that the "word of the LORD" going forth from Jerusalem is preeminently the word of the gospel, the word concerning the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Luke 24:44-49; Acts 1:8). The righteousness of the law is fulfilled in Christians as they live in union with Christ (Rom. 8:4). The whole Old Testament including the Mosaic law is to be interpreted in the light of the Christocentric character of fulfillment (Luke 24:44-46). Thus a radical discontinuity arises in time through the coming of Christ. Taken together, the discontinuities in space and time prohibit us from carrying over Old Testament statutes directly to ourselves.

Thus the same two texts, Deut. 4:6-8 and Micah 4:1-2, look very different depending on our hermeneutical framework. If our framework stresses norms and continuity, we see the implications of continuity. If our framework stresses the different redemptive-historical situations and therefore discontinuities arising from differences in situation, we see the implications of discontinuity. In my judgment, neither framework finds any difficulty with these particular texts. Neither framework forces an unnatural sense on the texts or is forced to overlook a phrase that is difficult to harmonize.²¹

In fact if we are already thoroughly committed to one of the frameworks our interpretation of these and many other texts looks obvious. Our whole position is obviously right, and only someone insensitive to the obvious or sinfully resisting the clear teaching of Scripture could fail to agree with us. A certain dogmatism and harshness toward opponents can creep in unawares because we are not fully aware of how much the prechosen framework and its imperfections has influenced our conclusions. The arguments have more circularity in them than is commonly understood.

Of course, Deut. 4:6-8 and Mic 4:1-2 still have relevance to the debate. We should not just throw up our hands and say that both positions are right or that no one can know which is right. We must look again at these passages and others to try faithfully to understand all their implications. But initial impressions are not enough. We must be patient in trying to understand the whole warp and woof of God's revelation, and not merely quote passages like these in isolation because we can see how they support our position when interpreted against the background of that same position. It is too easy to read in what we afterwards read out.

The interpretation of Deut. 17:2-13 may further illustrate the interaction of frameworks with texts. Deut. 17:2-7 articulates principles for dealing judicially with false worship. Whereas Deut. 4:6-8 superficially might appear to affirm the complete universality of all Mosaic law, Deut. 17:2-13 superficially appears to affirm its special character. Intrusionists sensitive to the special status of Israel can immediately point out all the indications of ways in which the penalty for false worship is connected with the unique Israelite situation. The actions take place within the land given by God (17:2, 4). False worship involves transgression of God's covenant, that is, the covenant made especially with Israel in a unique historical event at Mount Sinai (verse 2). Execution is by stoning (verse 5), which may be analogous to the production of stone memorial altars testifying to God's history with Israel (cf. Josh. 22:10-34; Gen. 28:18).²² The execution redemptively purifies the community (17:7). Difficult cases are to be referred to the priests in the place that God will choose (verse 8).

But theonomists can also point out how this unique Israelite situation is a model embodying principles of universal application. The land of Palestine is a special holy land given by God, but it is thereby a symbol of the fact that all the earth is owned by God (Ps. 24:1) and given to human beings as he chooses (Acts 17:26). Israel is under special covenant with God, but this covenant is not only analogous to the covenant made with all human beings through Adam but also to the new covenant whose rule will extend to all nations (Matt. 28:18-20). Execution by stoning may have no special significance, since it is apparently the common method for capital crimes. Even if it has the significance of memorializing, it embodies the general principle of remembering the Lord's past dealings with us (Ps. 77:11). With regard to the note of purification (Deut. 17:7), just acts of the civil government are among the means by which national well-being is maintained and enhanced and the wrath of God turned away (cf. God's judgment on nations in Amos 1-2). Hence the text 17:7 embodies a general principle. The procedure for consulting with the priests in 17:8 expresses the general principle of having a system of appeals (cf. Eccles. 5:8-9) and being able to consult people knowledgeable in the law.

As before, the real question is not whether Deut. 17:2-13 is relevant to us or binding on us, but how is it binding? More precisely, what changes take place as we expand the application of the Mosaic law from Israel to the nonholy nations and as we expand its application in time through the changes introduced by fulfillment in Jesus Christ? What is permanent principle and what is adaptation to a unique situation in time and space?

Some verses of the Old Testament express a general principle pretty much as they stand (Lev. 19:4). Other verses express a principle in the form of a foreshadowment (Lev. 19:8). As a matter of degree we may therefore classify many of them as primarily "moral" or "ceremonial." But we oversimplify if we say merely that one verse is specific to Israel and another verse is universal. In fact all the verses are God's personal covenantal communication to Israel first of all and are colored by their unique redemptive-historical context. At the same time all the verses express God's character and his abiding principles of justice. To put it another way, all the verses point forward to Christ. They point forward to the uniqueness of his incarnation, death, and resurrection once and for all, and hence have a unique redemptive-historical coloring. Simultaneously they point forward to the universality of the principles of justice by which he reigns. Hence they express in some way God's character and are generalizable into rules with universal bearing.

Deut. 17:8-20 is a particularly good illustration of this dual reality. If we read Deut. 17:8-20 from a theonomist framework, we are on the lookout for unchanging principle. So we notice the practical wisdom of a system of appeals and the necessity and justice of dealing radically with a person who would destroy the very foundations of authority by contumacy (verses 12-13). If we read Deut. 17:8-20 from an intrusionist framework, we immediately recognize the typological status of the high priest, the judge, and the king as special officers foreshadowing Christ. Hence we see the passage as speaking of the necessity of listening to the voice of God in Christ and the penalty for rebellion against Christ. In fact both of these readings are true as far as they go. Israel is a nation among nations, and so of course God's political wisdom for Israel will embody lessons for all government. All governments are subject to God's rule. At the same time, Israel is a nation filled with typological symbols, and so of course there is a fruitful analogy between Israel's system of government and the government of Christ. But we are in danger of missing something if we consistently adopt only one of these frameworks. What we miss may sometimes be crucial to understanding the Old Testament in depth and therefore crucial to applying it rightly in changed circumstances. For example, if we rigidly applied a principle of continuity, with no understanding of the typological role of the high priest, we would be forced to set up a contemporary earthly high priest for ourselves. If we rigidly applied a principle of discontinuity, we would simply learn nothing about principles for organizing a modern state.

In the case of Deut. 17 it is comparatively easy to see some of the basic insights to be derived from each of two perspectives. In such a case, a typical reader operating within one perspective might still notice complementary truths. But what happens when we come to more difficult cases? Then the reader is all the more tempted to stop short simply with the answers obtained from one perspective.

Old Testament penalties

Old Testament penal laws, where some notorious disagreements arise, involve some of the same difficulties that we have just seen. Penal laws clearly involve a principle of justice and fit punishment, and hence embody permanent principle. Some penal laws just as clearly involve restoration (e.g., the thief repaying what he has stolen and the manslaughterer being free to return to his home after the death of the high priest, Num. 35:9-28). Such restoration foreshadows the coming of Christ. If we have decided beforehand that a particular penal law (e.g. Exod. 21:14) is moral, its function is primarily to define sin and restrain evil. If we have decided beforehand that a particular penal law (e.g. Lev. 20:2-3; Num. 1:51; 3:10) is ceremonial and is based on the special holiness of Israel, its function is partly to assert the special holiness of Israel as a foreshadowing of the holiness of Christ, the holiness of the church, and the cleansing from sin by Christ's substitutionary penal death. But it is wiser not to impose our classification at all, lest we compress the richness of the passage or prejudge the limits of its implications. Instead we should patiently try to understand the function of the particular law in its broader context and on this basis discern how it applies--perhaps in a variety of respects--in the New Testament era.

Bahnsen and many other theonomists maintain as a general principle that the penal laws are all moral, that is, that they all express permanent, universal principles.²³ At a minimum, such an assertion may mean only that every law expresses universal principles by revealing God's justice. Such is in fact the case, as we can see from the uniform biblical testimony to the holiness and goodness of the law (e.g. Ps. 119; Rom. 7:14; 13:8-10), the unchangeable character of God, and the fact that God's word is always consistent with every aspect of his character, including his justice. The whole of this book functions to illustrate these truths.²⁴ But theonomists appear to be saying something more. At a maximum they are claiming that penal laws require no substantial adjustments because of the coming of Christ. Theonomy as popularly understood involves such a maximalist position, but it is more accurate to say that Bahnsen's general statements concerning penal law are qualified by the places where he says that we should presume continuity unless we have biblical evidence to the contrary.²⁵

Bahnsen and others have much to say in favor of this general principle concerning penal law. But their most powerful arguments and proof texts deal with the fact that universal principles of God's justice are embodied in all God's statutes whatsoever. If their arguments point to pure permanence for all laws whatsoever, they prove too much because food laws clearly do not fit. If their arguments allow (as in fact they do) for changes in the form of application due to advance in redemptive history, such changes may also affect some of the penology (such as Exod. 30:33, 38; Lev. 20:10, 18; Lev. 23:29; and Num. 35:28). Which parts are affected and how? That remains to be seen. But then we must look at the penal law statute by statute, context by context, and try to understand its functions. We do not merely assume that no changes can ever be entertained. Such is what I have endeavored to do in Part II of this book.

Bahnsen's advocacy of a presumption of continuity is understandable in a Christian atmosphere given to ignoring the Old Testament in general and its penology in particular. He is summoning the troops to awake from their slumber and their compromises with the evil world around, and to recognize the wisdom of the Old Testament. I am uncomfortable with his stance because I am attacking a different evil, namely, the presumption that we know what sort of literature we will find in the Old Testament before we read it. Theonomists run the danger of presuming that the Mosaic law consists in blueprints for modern economics and politics, while intrusionists run the danger of presuming that the Mosaic law consists in typological truths about spiritual redemption in Christ, truths necessarily unrelated to modern earthly governments. Both of these moves flatten Mosaic literature in one direction and so hinder the rich understanding that we need to do the job accurately in political ethics and in Christological understanding. Bahnsen himself shows sensitivity to this danger when he writes:

We need to be sensitive to the fact that interpreting the Old Testament law, properly categorizing its details (for example, ceremonial, standing, cultural), and making modern day applications of the authoritative standards of the Old Testament is not an easy or simple task. It is not always readily apparent to us how to understand an Old Testament commandment or use it properly today. So the position taken here does not make everything in Christian ethics a simple matter of looking up obvious answers in a code-book. Much hard thinking--exegetical and theological homework--is entailed by a commitment to the position advocated in these studies.²⁶

We shall have to do our homework to understand the whole Bible in depth. Some theonomists' simple arguments to the effect that the Old Testament law is confirmed in the New Testament and therefore must be kept now in a literal and straightforward way are not adequate. Some intrusionists' simple arguments to the effect that many laws are not found outside of the Mosaic era and therefore may safely not be kept are equally inadequate. Both of these routes are the lazy way out in the sense that they do not come to grips with the full richness of Old Testament revelation. We shall have to work to understand what God is saying--and that means understanding in indissoluble and harmonious unity both how God dealt uniquely with Israel to foreshadow Christ and how God constantly revealed his eternal justice as an aspect of the wisdom that is found in Christ (Col. 2:3). When we neglect to use both normative and situational perspectives (and for that matter the personal perspective) to supplement our understanding, we flatten out the depth of Old Testament revelation, and eventually distort our understanding of God himself .

The best representatives of both theonomy and intrusion are of course not so simplistic. But I think that even the best representatives might be able to learn by some more sensitive listening to the other side. And I would appeal to the followers not to be so swallowed by the persuasive rhetoric of an admittedly insightful framework that they are unable to see nuances that come readily to light only by adopting another point of view. It would be a shame if theonomists' commendable attempt to evaluate politics, economics, and civil government in the light of the standard of God's written word should fail to produce godly fruit. But our labors will be corrupted if Christian infighting takes over or if overconfidence in a hermeneutical framework makes us stop short of deep penetration into God's word. If we stop short, we may be in possession of unjust principles that we think just.

If we are largely ignorant of the Old Testament, we have a heavy responsibility to become familiar with it. As we become knowledgeable, our knowledge of the Old Testament gives us more weighty responsibility to apply it. But we also have a responsibility not to dishonor the name of God by inordinately dogmatic claims putting forward as God's justice what in some cases may turn out afterwards not to be so.