JUDICIAL WARFARE
Christian Reconstruction and Its Blueprints For Dominion
by Greg Loren Durand

Chapter Eight:
The Biblical Doctrine of the Law

       Greg Bahnsen claimed that we should consider all the laws of the Old Testament still valid unless they are specifically abrogated in the New Testament. Not only does this qualification demolish his "established in exhaustive detail" argument, but it is clearly contradicted by the writer of Hebrews, who declared that the Mosaic law has not only been changed, but has been taken away and replaced by the New Covenant. Theonomists mock their critics' supposedly inconsistent interpretation of Matthew 5:17-19 ("I came not to abolish, but to abolish"), but they fail to read this passage in light of the rest of the New Testament, especially the epistles of Paul:

       But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: how shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious (2 Corinthians 3:7-11).

       It is not possible to interpret that which was "done away" as merely the outward performance of sacrifices, for it was certainly not the ceremonial law which was "engraven in stones," but "the words of the covenant, the ten commandments" (Exodus 34:28). Furthermore, in speaking also of that which was "written," Paul intended to bring to mind Deuteronomy 31:9: "And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and unto all the elders of Israel." Therefore, all the case laws, tithing laws, sacrificial laws, etc., as well as the summary laws of the Decalogue, were all classed together by Paul as "the ministration of death," and declared to have passed away in contrast to the ministry of the Gospel "which remaineth." This is not to say, however, that the moral principles reflected in the law have been abolished; if the Mosaic law had never been given at Mount Sinai, these principles would still have bound mankind because they are co-existent with man's nature as the image-bearer of God Himself (Genesis 1:26-27, 9:6) and were therefore not exclusive to the Jewish nation.⁽¹⁾ This passage alone deals a devastating blow to Bahnsen's assertion that Jesus "did not come to abrogate any part of the law." According to Paul, Christ instead abrogated the whole Mosaic covenant, which agrees with the teaching of the book of Hebrews that the law has not only been changed, but has been taken away. It is therefore not surprising that Greg Bahnsen only briefly mentioned this passage twice in his entire book, writing that "the law is not to be exalted at the expense of the gospel. The gospel far excels in glory because it has renewing power" (emphasis in original).⁽²⁾ This is only partially true and very misleading; the Gospel far excels the law in glory because the former is eternal, while the latter was only meant to be temporary. John Calvin commented:

       The Apostle says, that the law was but for a time, and required to be abolished, but that the gospel, on the other hand, remains for ever. There are various reasons why the ministry of Moses is pronounced transient, for it was necessary that the shadows should vanish at the coming of Christ, and that statement — The law and the Prophets were until John (Matt. xi. 13) — applies to more than the mere shadows. For it intimates, that Christ has put an end to the ministry of Moses, which was peculiar to him, and is distinguished from the gospel. Finally, the Lord declares by Jeremiah, that the weakness of the Old Testament arose from this — that it was not engraven on men's hearts (Jer. xxxi. 32, 33). For my part, I understand that abolition of the law, of which mention is here made, as referring to the whole of the Old Testament, in so far as it is opposed to the gospel, so that it corresponds with the statement — The law and the Prophets were until John. For the context requires this. For Paul is not reasoning here as to mere ceremonies, but shows how much more powerfully the Spirit of God exercises his power in the gospel, than of old under the law.⁽³⁾

       In Ephesians 2:11-18, Paul went on to write:

       Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: but now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace. And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: and came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.

       Bahnsen attempted to prove that "the law of commandments contained in ordinances" was merely a reference to the ceremonial laws,⁽⁴⁾ but this simply is not the case. Paul wrote on the same subject in Colossians 2:13-14: "And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross." In Romans 7:5-11, he further identified "the enmity" and "the handwriting of ordinances that was against us" to be the entire law itself, including the Decalogue:

       For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

       Can anyone doubt that when Paul wrote of "the ministration of death" in his second epistle to the Corinthians, "the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us" in his epistle to the Colossians, and "the commandment" which he found to be "unto death" in his epistle to the Romans, he had the very same subject in mind? Paul's doctrine is unmistakable: the Mosaic law in its entirety has ceased to operate. Even John Calvin himself, whom many Theonomists claim as one of their own, viewed the law as finding its fulfillment and abrogation in the work of Christ. Commenting specifically on the Sabbath, but extending his argument to the entire law, Calvin wrote:

       When [God] calls it a "perpetual" or eternal "covenant," the Jews rest on it as a ground of their obstinacy, and wantonly rave against Christ as a covenant-breaker, because He abrogated the Sabbath.... Whatever was spoken of under the Law as eternal, I maintain to have had reference to the new state of things which came to pass at the coming of Christ; and thus the eternity of the Law must not be extended beyond the fulness of time, when the truth of its shadows was manifested, and God's covenant assumed a different form. If the Jews cry out that what is perpetual, and what is temporary, are contraries to each other, we must deny it in various respects, since assuredly what was peculiar to the Law could not continue to exist beyond the day of Jesus Christ.⁽⁵⁾

       Driven by his monocovenantalism, Bahnsen wanted his readers to see the continuity between the law and the Gospel,⁽⁶⁾ but Scripture does not teach such a continuity. Rather, the continuity is between the promise given to Abraham and his Seed (Genesis 12:3, 18:18, 22:17-18) and the Gospel (Galatians 3:8). This was the historical outworking of the Covenant of Grace originally announced in Genesis 3:15, of which the elect — both Jews and Gentiles — are the beneficiaries through faith (Galatians 3:16-17). Paul wrote that the law "was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made" (verse 19). It was this other legal covenant that was temporary and served to "shut up" the Hebrew people until the object of the promise — Christ — should be revealed: "But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith" (verses 23-24). The "we" of which Paul spoke in these verses were those "who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles" (Galatians 2:15). Elsewhere, Paul stated that the Gentiles "have not the law" (Romans 2:14), "followed not after righteousness" (Romans 9:30), and were "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world" (Ephesiasn 2:12). These statements agree with the Old Testament's doctrine that the law was unique to Israel (Deuteronomy 4:8), that the Gentiles "have not known" the law (Psalm 147:20), and that Israel was chosen out of the nations of the world to be "a peculiar people" (Deuteronomy 14:2; cf. 2 Samuel 7:23-24; 1 Chronicles 17:21-22). Therefore, the Mosaic law never even served as the "schoolmaster" for the Gentiles to bring them to Christ, much less was it intended to bind their consciences after they were converted by the Gospel. In Romans 4:13, Paul went on to write, "For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith."⁽⁸⁾ Thus, Abraham was not under the law of Moses and neither are his children, whether they be Jews or Gentiles:

       For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid....
       Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God (Romans 6:14, 7:1-4).

       For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ..... And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
       Now I say, That an heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; but is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: but when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. But now, after ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?...
       Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.... But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law (Galatians 3:26-27, 29, 4:1-9, 5:1, 18).

       Paul was certainly no Theonomist. In Galatians 5:11, he asked, "And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased." "Circumcision" was used here as a metaphor for the entire law, since this rite was the entrance point into the covenant which God had made with Israel: "For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law" (Galatians 5:3). The Gospel of grace was an offense to the Jews because it teaches freedom in the Spirit, rather than bondage to the law. It elevates the believer to the status of an adult heir of God, rather than keeping one in perpetual childhood under "tutors and governors" (Galatians 4:2). It produces self-restraint and self-rule without the threatenings of external force (Philippians 4:13; 1 Timothy 1:9). It produces familial love for God rather than servile fear of His judgments (Romans 8:15; 1 John 4:17-18). All these things are unattainable to the unregenerate man and are therefore "unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness" (1 Corinthians 1:23). The entire epistle to the Galatians was written to refute essentially the same error which is now promoted by Theonomy — that the law of Moses continues in force under the New Covenant — and it is absolutely astounding that thousands of professed Reformed believers have not seen this lucid fact:

       Like many other of St. Paul's Epistles, the one now before us is chiefly occupied in opposing the disposition shown by the Christian converts to unite Judaism with Christianity; and since so much of the present Epistle is employed on the subject of circumcision, which point was sooner settled than many others, it is evident that it was written at an earlier stage of this great controversy than when the Epistles to the Corinthians and the Romans were composed. It appears, indeed, that one or more influential Christian Jews, probably from Jerusalem, had intruded into the Galatian church — which had been founded on the ideas of Christian liberty from the yoke of the Law, which Paul entertained — and taught the necessity of circumcision, and of obedience to the whole Law. They seem to have considered, with many others who stirred up the churches against St. Paul, that Christianity was merely a sect or modification of Judaism, which did not by any means dispense with the obligations of the Law, which they believed to be perpetual. This notion it was natural enough for Jews to entertain; and even some of the apostles appear to have relinquished it with difficulty. Indeed, it seems, in this age, to have been the hardest of all things for the Jewish Christians to understand that the new religion was an original, independent, and superseding revelation. St. Paul was constantly brought into contact with the class of feelings arising from such views; since, as the apostle of the Gentiles, it became necessary to him to state the separate claims of Christianity broadly and distinctly. He had to tell the Gentile converts whether they were to obey the Law of Moses or not: whereas the apostles who laboured among the Jews, had not the subject equally pressed upon their attention, and did not feel it urgently necessary to teach their converts to discontinue that obedience to the Law which they had been accustomed to render. If the apostles of the circumcision permitted these things, as matters indifferent to those who were Jews, Paul felt that it behoved him not to allow that, which might thus be permitted to them as an indifferent thing, to be set up as a matter of necessity to the Gentiles. To require the Gentiles to conform to the Law of Moses, and above all to be circumcised, was to lay upon their shoulders a yoke very different from the easy one of Christ; and was calculated to hinder the progress of the Gospel among them (emphasis in original).⁽⁹⁾

Endnotes

1. Reference: Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XIX:1-2.

2. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics, page 136.

3. John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1993), Volume II, pages 178-179.

4. Reference: Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics, pages 209-210 (footnote).

5. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House 1993), Volume II, pages 443-444.

6. Reference: Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics, pages 185-188.

7. The promise of this covenant (regeneration) is now fulfilled in the Church (1 Peter 2:9).

8. In direct contradiction to this verse, Reconstructionists believe that the sanctions of the law are the "tools of dominion" by which they will become "heirs of the world." This will be discussed in a later chapter.

9. John Kitto, The Holy Bible According to the Authorised Version, With Original Notes and Pictorial Illustrations (London: James Sangster and Company, n.d.), Volume II, page 1060.