In part 1, I explained the variety of laws found in the Bible and summarized them in three categories, namely, civil, ceremonial, and moral. We noted that while ceremonial laws are fulfilled in Christ and are no longer binding, moral laws are ever-binding on humanity and are continually relevant since these laws are a reflection of the unchanging nature of God.
We can distinguish moral laws from civil and ceremonial laws in various ways. For example, one means through which moral laws may be discerned is through the application of those principles to those outside of the Mosaic covenant. God did not judge the people of Canaan for their consumption of shellfish, but he did judge them for their detestable sexual immorality (Lev. 18:24-25). Whereas the prohibitions related to food were specifically revealed and given to Israel (i.e., “They are unclean to you,” Lev. 11:8), the prohibitions of a moral variety were given to mankind and are a segment of natural revelation (Rom. 2:15).
More difficult, however, is understanding the relevance of Old Testament civil laws to our day. I noted last week that the best approach to Israel's civil laws is to recognize that these laws may not have specific applicability in our time but nonetheless contain an underlying expression of the moral law. The moral content of a civil law is called the "general equity" and has historically served as a critical basis for modern jurisprudence. Indeed, much of our state and federal law codes are indebted to Israel's civil law.
It is helpful to think of Israel's civil laws as inspired applications of the moral law. Although, Christians debate the extent to which the government should seek to employ Israel's civil laws. In the 1980s, a movement emerged among evangelicals called "Christian Reconstruction," which advocated for the direct application of Israel's civil law in the US. Their viewpoint on the law is known as "theonomy" from the Greek nouns theos ("God") and nomos ("law"). While theonomy's popularity waned in the 1990s-2010s, it has re-emerged in a refined form in recent years. Theonomists make an interesting argument from Romans 13:1-7 that seeks to prove the contemporary need for the application of Israel's civil laws to the government. They argue: 1.) Governmental leaders are appointed by God and are not to be resisted; 2.) These leaders are ministers of God commissioned to administer his wrath; and 3.) Governmental leaders are, therefore, required to rule according to God's law.
While this argument, as written, is entirely persuasive to me, theonomists assume that Paul had Israel's civil law code in mind when he wrote Romans 13. However, this conclusion is not at all likely. Governmental authority, wrote Paul, is the sword-bearing avenger (ekdikos; "punisher") through whom God exercises his wrath upon evildoers (Rom. 13:3-4). Paul's language implies that he had God's moral law in mind and not Israel's specific civil laws. Keep in mind that God did not punish the nations surrounding Israel for failing to keep Israel's civil laws. This observation has led some Christians to refine and recast the theonomic viewpoint and the result is what is known as "general equity theonomy." This view argues that the moral law and general equity of the civil law (i.e., the moral quotient) should shape the life of God's people and how government rules.
In the next installment, we will take a closer look at the application of general equity theonomy as it relates to the Christian life.
Comments