See, I have taught you statutes and rules, as the LORD my God commanded me, that you should do them in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. Keep them and do them, for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, 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 rules so righteous as all this law that I set before you today? (Deuteronomy 4:5-8)

Introduction

Having considered the importance and purpose of God’s law, specifically as it is expressed in the Mosaic Covenant, we come to one of the points of greatest contention among Christians: How we are to apply God’s law to our lives today.

In order to properly deal with any issue of interpretation and application, we must always consider the context of a passage. This is true whether we are talking about biblical narrative, poetry, prophecy, or law. In every case, the underlying principles of interpretation always remain the same. In fact, one way to discern whether or not someone is misapplying the Scriptures is to see if they are consistently using the principles of interpretation. If they use a different set of rules for different passages that are within the same context and genre, you should be skeptical of their conclusions.

While there are many books out there that address the topic of interpretation in great detail, here are a few questions you should ask yourself when reading the Bible in order to best understand the meaning of a passage:

1. Who is the original author and who is the original audience?

2. What major historical events have taken place, or are taking place, at the time that the passage is written?

3. What aspects of that culture and time period are relevant to understanding the passage?

4. What is the author intending to communicate to the original audience?

5. What words, phrases, or images are being used or repeated by the author and how do they impact the message being communicated?

These questions seek to highlight the main aspects of what are known as the historical-grammatical principles of interpretation. That is a fancy way of saying that, to understand the meaning of a passage, we need to look at the words in their context. That context includes aspects of history, culture, language, geography, and theology. And although this seems overwhelming at first, it is nothing different than what we do on a regular basis when we try to find the truth, or meaning, of anything else that we read or hear.

Covenantal Context

When it comes to understanding God’s law, we can use the above questions to help us get to the meaning, or purpose, of a law. This is the first thing we need to do prior to trying to apply the law to our modern context. The reason for this is simple: God’s law is not given to people in a vacuum.

For example, the Ten Commandments were not just a summary of the laws that God gave to the people of Israel through the prophet Moses. They were the official covenant documents between God and the nation of Israel. To use modern terminology, they served as Israel’s constitution.^[1]

The passage that best seems to highlight the Mosaic Law as Israel’s covenant/constitutional document is found in Exodus 24:

Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD and all the rules. And all the people answered with one voice and said, “All the words that the LORD has spoken we will do.” And Moses wrote down all the words of the LORD. He rose early in the morning and built an altar at the foot of the mountain, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. And he sent young men of the people of Israel, who offered burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen to the LORD. And Moses took half of the blood and put it in basins, and half of the blood he threw against the altar. Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the hearing of the people. And they said, “All that the LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.” And Moses took the blood and threw it on the people and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words.” (Exodus 24:3-8)

In this scene, we see the public presentation of the law along with its verbal affirmation by the people. Their oath to serve God and adhere to the law is then sealed with the sprinkling of blood upon them by Moses. In this way, the Mosaic Law (summarized in the Ten Commandments) acted as the official constitution that set Israel apart from the nations around them.^[2]

Yet not only was the Mosaic Law binding upon the common people of Israel, it was also meant to be the foundation for all law and order in the land. This is seen clearly in Deuteronomy 17, where God gives rules concerning how Israel’s king was to behave:

And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the LORD his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them, that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left, so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel. (Deut. 17:18-20)

To summarize the above passage, the king himself was to be in submission to the law of the land, the covenant between God and Israel. In fact, God held the king particularly responsible for obeying the law and ruling in accordance with it. The king was not above the law and could not rule contrary to it. Rather, the examples given in the law served as case studies that the king was to use in administering law and justice, first in his own household and then throughout Israel.

While there is no doubt that the primary purpose of God’s law was to be the foundation for Israel’s society and government, it was also meant to serve as an example for the nations. If the people of Israel were to adhere to God’s law, the nations around them would have looked upon them and said, “Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.”^[3] The reason for this is simple: a nation’s laws reflect that nation’s god.

In the ancient world, gods were understood as dwelling in certain territories and as exercising dominion over those territories. Of course, any god’s domain could be expanded through war and conquest. Yet it was clear that all laws were established in order to serve whatever god was being worshiped at that time and in that location. We see this, for example in the Code of Hammurabi, where King Hammurabi states that he is ruling the land on behalf of the god Marduk.

To be honest, not much has changed in our modern world. We still have gods and we still make laws in accordance with the gods that we serve, whether those gods are money, power, sexual pleasure, or entertainment. Yet the point I wish to make is that when we look at the law that God gave to the nation of Israel, we need to keep in mind how that law not only brought them closer to God, but also enabled them to set an example for the surrounding nations.

Christ and the New Covenant

Having briefly considered the context of God’s giving of the law to Israel, we now have to look at those commandments in light of Jesus Christ and his inauguration of the New Covenant. How did Jesus and the Apostles apply the Mosaic Laws to themselves and others? Has the application of those laws been altered or changed in any way? If so, how and why were they changed? These are questions we must ask if we are to properly take Old Testament laws and apply them in a New Testament context.

Perhaps the most relevant passage regarding this topic is seen in what is commonly referred to as the Sermon on the Mount:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-20)

In this statement from Jesus, we see a number of important points. First, we are told that it would be wrong for anyone to think that Christ intended to abolish, or destroy, the Law or the Prophets (a common way of referring to the entirety of the Old Testament). Second, Jesus states that nothing will pass away until both “heaven and earth pass away” and “all is accomplished.” This seems to be a reference to the final judgment, or second coming of Christ, where the old heaven and old earth pass away and the new heaven and new earth will be established for eternity. Of course, after the final judgment the wicked will be destroyed and the righteous will inherit an eternal life free from sin and its effects. In essence, Jesus implies that the law will no longer be needed when we live in glory with him in the new heaven and the new earth. Until that time, the law will remain.

This respect that Jesus has for the law is reinforced in both the warning he gives to those who would relax the commandments and the promise he gives to those who would obey them. Furthermore, he does not at all lower the bar for those who wish to “enter the kingdom of heaven.” Their righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees (a group of Jewish leaders who were commonly viewed as very obedient to the law, at least on the surface). Of course, that level of righteousness cannot be earned but can only be received as a gift. Those who wish to enter the kingdom of heaven must be clothed in the righteousness of Christ, for he alone is truly and completely righteous.

That being said, simply because we cannot attain righteousness through obedience to the law does not mean that our view of it should become diminished. As Christ makes clear, those who love and serve God should honor and uphold God’s law. The fact that we cannot meet the righteous demands of the law apart from Christ’s righteousness being imputed to us only serves to show just how holy, righteous, and good God’s law is. So, when we approach the law, we must do so as those who have already been clothed with the righteousness of Christ. When we do this, we will avoid the mistake of trying to use God’s law as a way to earn our own salvation.

Finding Fault

Interestingly, Jesus himself used the law to demonstrate just how sinful we are as human beings. For example, in that same Sermon on the Mount referenced earlier, Jesus asserted that if a man were to look lustfully at a woman who was not his wife, he was guilty of adultery.^[4] Clearly Jesus did not alter the Seventh Commandment or diminish it in any way. Rather, he expanded it to address the very heart of the matter. The same is true regarding other topics such as anger, vengeance, and the making of oaths.^[5]

All throughout the gospels, Jesus never once relaxes God’s law.^[6] Rather, the two things that Jesus tended to criticize the most were any attempts at self-righteousness and the abuse, or misuse, of the law. Regarding the first, we can see this in the example of the rich young ruler who openly asserted that he had kept all of the commandments since he was young.^[7] As for the second, we see this when Jesus applauds the Pharisees for their attention to detail regarding tithing but chastises them for ignoring “the weightier matters of the law” such as “justice and mercy and faithfulness.”^[8]

At this point, one might bring up Jesus’s teaching regarding clean and unclean foods as an example of him relaxing the law.^[9] If that is true, certainly that would disprove my argument. But here a distinction must be made between Christ relaxing the law and Christ fulfilling the law. To understand this distinction, let us consider a few passages in Hebrews, a book that is a true goldmine for any discussion about the relationship between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant:

But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. 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.”

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. (Hebrews 8:6-13)

In the above passage, we see that the New Covenant, mediated by Christ, is better than the Old Covenant. The reason for this is because the Old Covenant did not actually cause its participants to have the law of God written on their hearts. Yet in the New Covenant, those who are partakers of it have their sins forgiven and their hearts changed, in fulfillment of the prophecy in Jeremiah 31 (quoted by the author of Hebrews in the above passage).

It is important to note that, according to the passage, the fault was technically not with the Old Covenant but rather with the people. This is why the writer of Hebrews says that God finds fault “with them” rather than “with it.” The actual fault is with the people themselves, who are spiritually dead. This is reiterated one chapter later when the author of Hebrews says that the Old Covenant “cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper.”^[10] If our consciences had already been pure and set free from sin, the Old Covenant would have worked just fine. Yet the weakness of that covenant is really a reflection of the weakness of the people.

This point had, in fact, been made by the writer of Hebrews a few chapters earlier:

Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. (Hebrews 7:11-12)

Again, we see that the Old Covenant could not provide the perfection that was necessary. This could only come about through Christ’s perfect life and sacrifice. Furthermore, the change in priesthood resulted in nothing less than a change in terms of the covenant. With Christ as the High Priest of the New Covenant, the law is changed. Yet this change in the law does not take place because Jesus destroys, or abolishes, the law but because he fulfills it.

This is exactly why Jesus can give his disciples a “new commandment” about loving one another.^[11] Why is that new? Because the Church is the New Covenant community and did not exist in that form before Christ. Of course, God has always had his faithful followers throughout the ages, but they were never officially organized as the Church until the New Covenant. With the creation of a new institution, Jesus Christ is authorized – as the head of that institution – to provide new directives governing its operation. That is why, as members of this New Covenant institution, we must look at God’s law in light of Christ and through the lens of the New Testament.

The Greatest Commandment

Now, if we begin to survey the Old Testament laws, we will immediately be faced with a few questions. How are the laws to be organized? Are there some laws that are more important, or essential, than others? How do the laws relate to one another? How come some laws have earthly penalties attached to them, but others do not? All of these are vital questions that we need to answer before trying to apply each law to our modern context.

The best way to tackle these questions, like any other theological question concerning the Old Testament, is to look at what the New Testament has to say on the matter. For instance, we know from Jesus’s teachings that the two greatest commandments are to love God with all of our heart, mind, soul, and strength and to love our neighbor as ourselves.^[12] He declares that upon these two commandments, cited from Deuteronomy 6 and Leviticus 19, “depend all the Law and the Prophets.”^[13]

In other words, if we were to make a diagram that listed the Old Testament laws, the commands to love God and love our neighbor would be at the very top, with the other laws flowing from them. The Ten Commandments would fit underneath those two greatest commandments, with the first four commandments filed under “loving God” and the last six under “loving neighbor.” This splitting of the Ten Commandments into two tables is neither arbitrary nor a matter of historical tradition. Rather, it can be seen in several New Testament examples.

For instance, in Romans 13 the Apostle Paul cites the sixth, seventh, eighth, and tenth commandments, saying that they are “summed up in this word: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”^[14] Additionally, when the rich young ruler approaches Jesus and asks how to inherit eternal life, Jesus cites the last six of the Ten Commandments. This is purposeful, for as soon as the man claims to have kept them from his youth (essentially a claim to have loved his neighbor perfectly), Jesus then tells him to sell his possessions, give his money to the poor, and follow him. The man walks away sorrowful, revealing that he loved his wealth more than Christ. So, while the man felt confident in loving his neighbor, he quickly demonstrated a lack of love for God.^[15]

Conclusion

With the Ten Commandments acting as broad categories for how to love God and love our neighbor, the rest of the Mosaic Law provides us with specific examples, or case laws. In other words, if we want to see examples of what it means to love God and to love our neighbor, we need to be instructed by the Ten Commandments, their respective case laws, and the wisdom literature as well (e.g., Proverbs). Thankfully, the New Testament writers give us explicit examples of how to apply these things in a New Covenant context. But that will be the topic for my next article.

^[1] Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant, 328.

^[2] Lev. 20:24.

^[3] Deut. 4:6.

^[4] Matthew 5:28.

^[5] Matthew 5:21-42.

^[6] Matthew 5:19. In fact, Jesus actually promises condemnation for those who do so and who teach others to do so.

^[7] Luke 18:18-23.

^[8] Matt. 23:23.

^[9] Mark 7:14-23.

^[10] Hebrews 9:9.

^[11] John 13:34-35.

^[12] Matt. 22:37-39.

^[13] Matt. 22:40.

^[14] Romans 13:9.

^[15] Mark 10:17-22.

For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin. (Romans 7:22-25)

Introduction

In my previous article, I showed how the first and foremost purpose of the law of God is to point us to Christ, who saves us from the condemning power of the law. But however foundational that purpose is, it is not the only purpose of God’s law. Rather, God’s law continues to serve an important role both for the faithful and for the unfaithful. These second and third purposes of the law are what I will be discussing this month.

Loving the Law

To begin, one of the best places to go to see how God’s law is to be understood by the believer is Psalm 119. There, we find an entire psalm that focuses on the role that God’s law is to play in the lives of the faithful. Just consider the following section:

Your hands have made and fashioned me; give me understanding that I may learn your commandments.

Those who fear you shall see me and rejoice, because I have hoped in your word.

I know, O LORD, that your rules are righteous, and that in faithfulness you have afflicted me.

Let your steadfast love comfort me according to your promise to your servant.

Let your mercy come to me, that I may live; for your law is my delight.

Let the insolent be put to shame, because they have wronged me with falsehood; as for me, I will meditate on your precepts.

Let those who fear you turn to me, that they may know your testimonies.

May my heart be blameless in your statutes, that I may not be put to shame! (Psalm 119:73-80)

In this short section, we see how the psalmist places such a deep emphasis on the word of God, specifically on God’s law. This is, in fact, the entire theme of Psalm 119, which is the longest of all the psalms and serves as one continuous praise of God’s law.

Lest anyone suggest that the words of Psalm 119 are merely an Old Covenant perspective of God’s law – not to be carried over into the New Covenant – we see an equal respect and appreciation for God’s law presented in the New Testament. The Apostle Paul himself, who so eloquently described the condemning power of the law, declares in Romans 7:12 that “the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.” Paul is careful to point out in the very next verse that it was not the law itself that produced death in him. Rather, it was sin that brought about death. The law simply revealed sin for what it was, in order that sin “would become sinful beyond measure.”^[1]

So, instead of advocating for a dismissal of God’s law, Paul highlights the beauty of it. He says that he has a “delight in the law of God” in his inner being.^[2] Of course, Paul continued to struggle against his sinful flesh and admitted that he failed to do the right things regularly. Yet he ends that section with the declaration that he would “serve the law of God” with his mind even as his sinful flesh served sin.^[3]

To Love is to Obey

The idea that God’s law is to be a delight to Christians is not unique to Paul. Jesus himself taught the disciples the importance of obedience to the law throughout the gospels, most notably in John 14:

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 manifest 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 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. (John 14:21-24)

In this passage, Jesus draws a vital connection between those who claim to love him and their response to his commands. The two go hand-in-hand. Those who love Jesus will keep his words and commandments. Those who do not love Jesus will not keep his words. Yet the words of Christ are not alien, or separate, from the words of the Father. They come from the Father. For this reason, no one can say that the God of the New Testament is different from the God of the Old Testament. The two are not in opposition but are the one and the same God.

What does this mean for Christians today? Well, at the very least it means that we should, like Paul, delight in the law of God. And like the psalmist in Psalm 119, we should study and meditate upon God’s law in order to apply it to our lives. We should do this because we have become children of God and servants of Christ. To use Paul’s words from Romans 6, we who were “once slaves of sin” have now, because of Christ, “become slaves of righteousness.” And what does righteousness look like? It looks like obedience to, and delight in, the law of God, as Christ himself demonstrated.

To be clear, this does not mean that Christians are to understand the Mosaic Law without any reference to Christ. Rather, we are to seek to apply those laws in light of Christ and the New Covenant, since Christ himself is both the giver and the interpreter of the law. How we are to do this with specific laws is something that I will address later. My goal here is simply to encourage you to delight in God’s law and desire to apply it to your life. We need to cultivate a heart of obedience before we can get into the specific details of what that obedience looks like. In other words, we need to present ourselves before the king with bent knees and humble hearts ready for service before we start asking him whether we are allowed to eat bacon-wrapped scallops.

The Law Restrains

At this point, we have covered two purposes for God’s law: one to point us to Christ and another to show us how to live as Christians. Yet there is a third use of the law that we tend to overlook. It is the restraining power of God’s law over humanity. That is, the law serves to keep people from behaving as wickedly as their sinful hearts would desire.

While this seems a bit off-topic, just consider the COVID-19 situation a few years ago. During that time, my state of Pennsylvania took some radical measures in response to the virus. The governor issued a stay-at-home order and called for all non-essential businesses to shut down. He did not make any serious attempt to universally enforce these measures, though there were some businesses who ended up being targeted. But even if the governor had tried to enforce these mandates statewide, the number of Pennsylvanians and the sheer size of the state would have made such enforcement impossible.

Yet, despite all of this, most Pennsylvanians complied with the order. And even as time went on and people began to disagree with the restrictions, they generally continued to obey things such as mask-mandates. Why was this the case? Why would they obey rules they disagreed with that were practically impossible for the government to enforce universally? Well, it is because of the restraining power of law.

You see, when any laws are given, they have an inherent restraining effect. If you inform people that a certain behavior is against the rules, the general tendency among them will be to comply (even if they disagree with the rule). And while there will always be those who want to immediately try to test the boundaries, the rules will have a constraining effect on the overall behavior of the group. This is true for both righteous laws and wicked laws. Consider the psalmist’s words in Psalm 119:115, “Depart from me you evildoers, that I may keep the commandments of God.” And again, in verse 134, “Redeem me from man’s oppression, that I may keep your precepts.” In both examples, the Psalmist wants to obey God’s law but is in some way being prevented, hindered, or restrained, from doing so by wicked men and their oppressive actions.

Now, it is important to point out that even in a society that rejects God, the law of God maintains its restraining power. This is because God’s law remains enforced by God himself. He upholds his law, although the consequences for breaking it are not always immediately perceived, for he is merciful and long-suffering, withholding judgment for years, decades, and sometimes even generations.^[4] Yet even when we do not see the consequences of law-breaking right away, God’s law continues to have a restraining power over our consciences due to the fact that we are made in God’s image. Consider the Apostle Paul’s words in his letter to the Church at Rome:

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Romans 2:14-16)

Here, Paul highlights how God’s law continues to work on the hearts of people, even upon those who never received the written form of God’s law. For without the written code, they sometimes end up doing what God’s law requires of them or, at the very least, recognize the existence of a higher moral standard.

For example, people from all societies and cultures know that murder, rape, and theft are wrong. They might not be consistent in their views and apply the same rules to everyone, but those concepts remain in their minds. Yet mankind’s moral understanding has been so affected by sin to the point that people now continually suppress the truth.^[5] The result is that while all men have a moral compass, it does not accurately point north. This is where the law of God comes into play, since one of its purposes is to point north and restrain men from going the wrong direction.

Law for the Lawless

In a way, then, the law’s third use is for those with a broken moral compass, not for those who have one that has been restored to functionality. Paul makes this point in his first letter to Timothy:

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 disobedient, 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 Timothy 1:8-11)

While much could be said regarding this passage, there are two aspects that I wish to highlight. First, Paul recognizes that the law (i.e. God’s law) is good if it is used properly. This implies that there is such a thing as using the law wrongfully. The law is a tool or an instrument established by God to be used for specific purposes. To misuse that tool, as the Pharisees tended to do, would itself be an unlawful act. In other words, it is wrong to use God’s law in a way that God does not allow.

Second, Paul makes it clear that the law was given for the lawless and disobedient. The implication here is that people who have a desire to obey God, by loving him and loving their neighbors, do not need the threat of the law to keep them in line. Rather, those who are lawless and disobedient – unable to govern themselves – need the law to restrain them. As an example, people who truly love their neighbors do not need to be told not to murder them. It is those who are prone to hatred against their neighbors that need to be restrained by the Sixth Commandment and its companion case-laws.

Conclusion

The contrasting purposes of God’s law for both believers and unbelievers are perhaps best summarized by the Reformer Martin Luther in his work Secular Authority: To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed. And so, I will end by quoting his explanation as to why the law is for the lawless and not for the righteous:

Why is this? Because the righteous does of himself all and more than all that all the laws demand. But the unrighteous do nothing that the law demands, therefore they need the law to instruct, constrain, and compel them to do what is good. A good tree does not need any teaching or law to bear good fruit; its nature causes it to bear according to its kind without any law and teaching. A man would be a fool to make a book of laws and statutes telling an apple tree how to bear apples and not thorns, when it is able by its own nature to do this better than man with all his books can define and direct. Just so, by the Spirit and by faith all Christians are throughout inclined to do well and keep the law, much more than anyone can teach them with all the laws, and need so far as they are concerned no commandments nor law.^[6]

[1] Romans 7:13.

[2] Romans 7:22.

[3] Romans 7:25.

[4] Genesis 15:16.

[5] Romans 1:18.

[6] Martin Luther, Secular Authority: To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed.

“Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the

more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness

leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 5:20-21)

Introduction

Have you ever heard the phrase, “laws are meant to be broken?” If you have, you will probably recall that it is often used by those who seek to justify something that they are about to do before they do it. In a strange way then, laws highlight our rebellious nature. As I mentioned previously, while laws are a reflection of the law-giver, our response to those laws reflects our hearts as law-receivers. That is, God’s law exposes the sinful hearts of sinful people. This makes our situation even worse, since we are not only guilty of breaking God’s law but also guilty of responding to it with spiteful and rebellious hearts.

To give an earthly example of this, several years ago I confronted my daughter about an act of deception that she purposefully performed against me and my wife. While I tried to ask probing questions in a calm and gentle manner, my daughter became increasingly agitated at our attempts to expose her sin. When we had reached what we thought was the end of the matter, we required our daughter to hand over her electronic device as a consequence for her actions. When my daughter responded by lashing out angrily toward us, her situation became worse and led to even further discipline.

This is just one example of many that I could share (and that I imagine you can relate to). I tell it to highlight an important point: the law reveals the heart of those to whom it is given. That is, while the law sets the standard for those who are under it – judging them accordingly – it also evokes a response. In the case of my daughter, she broke a law by being dishonest. That was the measurement by which she was initially disciplined. Yet her hostile and rebellious reaction to the consequences of her law-breaking revealed what she truly thought of the law. Like a surgical instrument, the law exposed what was happening underneath the surface.

Breaking the Law-Breakers

The function of parental law in the above story is very similar to how the Apostle Paul describes God’s law in his letter to the Church in Rome. There he states that “the law came in to increase the trespass.”^[1] He later goes on to say that he would not have known what it meant to covet unless the law had said “you shall not covet.” Yet even when he became aware of the commandment, his sinful nature seized the opportunity to produce in him “all kinds of covetousness.”^[2] Quite simply, God’s law evoked a response from Paul’s heart that revealed the man’s sinfulness. He, like everyone else, was already condemned as a sinner even before the commandment was given.^[3] The explicit giving of the commandment simply served to reveal Paul’s rebelliousness and condemn him even further.

Yet the law does more than just condemn and expose. It also captures and enslaves. This is something that Paul brings out in Romans 7 when he speaks about the law “as binding on a person.”^[4] Why is this the case? Well, Paul provided the answer a few chapters earlier in Romans 5:

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. (Romans 5:12-14)

Here Paul points out that our connection to Adam is what brought condemnation and death upon us. He reinforces this point later in his letter by stating that “one trespass led to condemnation for all men.” And so, we, being represented by Adam, inherit what Adam bequeaths to us – a sinful nature and a death sentence. If we are in Adam’s bloodline, we are bound to this fate. The only way out of it, as Paul states in Romans 7, is for us to die…in Christ.^[5]

The Law Exposes, Not Fixes, Failure

So far, we have seen that the law of God not only condemns us for our inadequacy but also evokes a further sinful response from our rebellious hearts. It points out that we have dug ourselves into a pit that we cannot escape. Out of spite, we make it worse by digging a little deeper. Yet this is exactly where the law does its greatest work – it points to our need for rescue and redemption.

How does it do that? Well, the law demands that we perfectly obey God, not only by doing what he requires but also by avoiding what he condemns. And if we make one mistake, we are condemned. As James 2:10 declares, “whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.” Therefore, to break one small part of the law is to become a lawbreaker. This is impossible to avoid given the fact that we have inherited a sinful nature from Adam. And even if we were not fallen in Adam, we would still be required to obey God perfectly from the moment we came into existence – or else immediate judgment would fall upon us.

Given our sad state, we are in desperate need of a savior. But can the law save us? While some might believe this to be possible, the very idea itself is nonsensical. If someone needs saving, it implies that they are in serious trouble. In our fallen condition, we are in trouble precisely because of the law’s demands. It would be odd, therefore, to suggest that the means of our condemnation would simultaneously be the means of our salvation. In other words, the law can only tell us what we are doing wrong or doing right. It cannot give us the power to actually maintain the standards or to fix what was broken. We either meet the standards, or we do not. And if we cannot meet and maintain them, there is no way to ‘make it up’ or ‘get extra credit’. Broken standards remain broken, even if they are broken only once.

Aside from that small point, the Scriptures are very clear that God’s law was never designed to save anyone. For instance, in Hebrews 7:19 the author explicitly says that “the law made nothing perfect.” And yet we know that perfection is exactly what God requires! Later in the letter, the author tells us the reason why the law cannot make us perfect: it cannot purify the conscience (i.e., change the heart).^[6] This is also confirmed by the Apostle Peter in his first epistle.^[7]

Conclusion

In both Peter’s first epistle and the letter to the Hebrews, the answer to the law’s weakness is Christ. It is Christ who purifies our conscience and makes us perfect. He can do this because only he can satisfy the payment of debt that is demanded by the law. The Apostle Paul states this clearly in his letter to the Colossians when he declares that, because of Christ’s sacrifice, God made us alive by “canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands.”^[8]

The primary purpose of the law, therefore, is to point us to Christ. The law does not point to itself as the savior, as if we could earn God’s favor and pay off our debt to him. Rather, it points us to Christ as the only true savior, because Christ is the one man who truly fulfilled the requirements of the law. This is why Paul can describe the law as “our guardian” or schoolmaster until Christ came, “in order that we might be justified by faith.”^[9] Consider the significance of that last part. Why was the law guarding us until Christ? So that we would be justified, or declared righteous, “by faith.” The whole point, therefore, is that God would be glorified in saving His people from their sins apart from any effort or good works of their own.

[1] Romans 5:20.

[2] Romans 7:8.

[3] Romans 5:18-19.

[4] Romans 7:1-3.

[5] Romans 7:4.

[6] Hebrews 9:14.

[7] 1 Peter 3:18-22.

[8] Colossians 2:13-14.

[9] Galatians 3:24.

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching,

for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

that the man of God may be complete,

equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

Introduction

Has there ever been a time in your life when you had to train for something? A job? A competition? A test? I imagine that if you have been alive for longer than a few years, your answer would be yes. Yet I also imagine that if you had not trained for the event, you would not have done well and perhaps would even have failed.

The importance of training cannot be understated. Without training, athletes either lose or get injured. Without training, workers either make poor products or get fired. Without training, armies either suffer defeat or get destroyed. Training is necessary. And while training is not fun, it pays off. It involves following a set of rules that are seemingly unrelated and require tedious repetition. Yet it all comes together to enable a person or a group to accomplish a specific task.

Of course, the task dictates the training. Someone who is training to play soccer is probably not going to excel in a tennis match. Similarly, an army that is training to engage in trench warfare is not going to succeed against an enemy equipped with aircraft, tanks, and mechanized infantry. All training, therefore, must serve a purpose.

In 2 Timothy 3:16-17, the Apostle Paul informs Timothy that all of Scripture is profitable, or useful, for a variety of things. One of those things is “training in righteousness.” Like other types of training, righteousness-training is designed to serve a particular purpose. In this case, the ultimate goal is to fully equip the people of God “for every good work.”

What does Paul highlight as the tool for righteousness-training? Scripture. Paul encourages Timothy to study and to remember the “sacred writings” that he had been acquainted with since childhood. Here Paul is referring primarily to the Hebrew Scriptures (i.e. the Old Testament), since the New Testament was still being written. This means that the Old Testament was considered essential for righteousness-training within the Church. In other words, if someone were to ask the Apostle Paul what the best resource would be for a Christian to learn righteousness and pursue good works, Paul would point to the Old Testament.

Reflecting the Righteous One

Now, I imagine that my use of the phrases “learn righteousness” and “pursue good works” might raise a few eyebrows. But rest assured that I am not teaching that we can be saved by our own efforts. Rather, Scripture makes it clear that good works are the fruit of faith. They are the result of a changed heart, not the cause of it.^[1] Christians are to engage in righteousness-training because they have inherited the righteousness of Christ and are being conformed to His image.^[2] As adopted sons and daughters of God, they are now expected to act like they are part of the family. They are expected to live a life of righteousness.

Yet, what is righteousness? What does it look like? Well, it looks like a reflection. As Christians, we are to reflect Christ, who is Himself the perfect imprint and image of the Father. This is the full and complete understanding of the image of God. Humans, being made in God’s image, were designed to reflect God’s character and nature. After falling into sin, humanity began regularly engaging in idolatry, reflecting the image of the false gods that they worshiped. Yet Christ restores the true image of God in mankind, reflecting His Father’s character and nature perfectly.^[3]

But what does it mean to reflect God’s character and nature? Well, Christ Himself gives us the answer clearly when He commands us to “be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”^[4] The context of this command is in regard to loving our enemies, a high calling that is quite contrary to what we prefer to do. Yet Christ uses that example to highlight the perfect character of the Father. In other words, to look like the Father is to act like the Father and to obey what the Father commands. This is something that Jesus did perfectly throughout his life, repeatedly highlighting His desire to do what He sees His Father doing and to complete the mission that His Father sent Him to complete.^[5]

Put a different way, God determines which actions and behaviors either are or are not righteous. God is “holy, holy, holy” with righteousness and justice as the foundation of His throne.^[6] He is the Creator, Sustainer, Protector, and King of all the universe. How he decides to act flows out of his nature and is a reflection of who he is.

Sin is Lawlessness

While it is often the case that a person’s behavior reflects their inner character, the same can be said regarding how a person expects others to behave. Each command given by a person demonstrates what that person cares about or considers to be valuable. Quite simply, these expectations, or laws, are a reflection of the law-giver. We can easily see the truth of this by considering some human examples.

For instance, the demands made by a business owner on his employees reveal what the owner considers to be valuable. It might be something as common as showing up to work on time. Or it might be something as seemingly nitpicky as selecting a certain format in the Microsoft Power Point slides that are used.

In the military, the success or failure of a mission is often measured by whether or not the commander’s intent was met. The demand, or requirement, made by the commander sets the standard. If the commander requires that all enemy combatants be killed or captured with zero civilian casualties, that becomes the standard of success.

Of course, grumbling and complaining are the responses that we often give to any standard placed upon us. Sometimes we complain because we think that the standard set by our superiors is stupid, unnecessary, or perhaps even wrong. Other times we complain because we are lazy and do not want to do what we have been told. We would rather be our own commander and set our own standards (which are usually lower than what others would have us do).

When we act this way toward our superiors, we are demonstrating a heart of lawlessness. That is, if our boss sets expectations that we kick and scream against, we are engaging in lawless behavior in his eyes. This does not mean that his expectations are good or that we have no grounds upon which to voice our concerns. The point I wish to make is simply that lawlessness, broadly defined, is the breaking or violation of a standard of behavior (i.e., law) established by a superior authority.

Conclusion

In connecting this to our discussion of God’s law, it is important to keep in mind that God’s law reflects God’s character. It reveals what God cares about and what He has deemed to be valuable. Furthermore, sin is the breaking of God’s law. It involves “missing the mark,” which is what the Hebrew word for sin, hamartia, generally means. The Apostle Paul utilizes this concept of missing, or falling short of, the mark in Romans 3:23, where he declares that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

Yet sin is not merely just missing the mark that God has set in front of us. It is an act of lawlessness and rebellion. John makes this point clear in 1 John 3:4 when he states that “everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness.” In fact, John reinforces this point by making the succinct declaration that “sin is lawlessness.” If that is the case, then knowing God’s law is key to knowing what sin is. As citizens of God’s kingdom, if we want to know what the king values (and what he hates) then we need to pay careful attention to the king’s laws.

Again, this is not to say that law-keeping is our golden ticket to paradise. We can neither earn God’s love nor pay off the debt that we owe to him due to our sin. Yet while God’s law is a reflection of his heart, our obedience to God is a reflection of our hearts. As Jesus said, “If you love me you will keep my commandments.”^[7] This teaching is echoed by the Apostle John when he says, “by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments.”^[8] The takeaway from this is that we need to know what God’s commandments are and how to keep them, not to earn God’s love but because we love him and wish to obey him.

[1] Matthew 7:15-20.

[2] Romans 8:29.

[3] Hebrews 1:3.

[4] Matthew 5:48.

[5] John 6:35-40; 14:8-14.

[6] Psalm 89:14.

[7] John 14:15.

[8] 1 John 2:3.

Introduction

Back in 2000, the TV show West Wing aired an episode where the main character, U.S. President Josiah Bartlet, ridicules a conservative radio talk show host who had called homosexuality an abomination. In response, President Bartlet makes the following speech:

“I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I’m interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She’s a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?

While thinking about that, can I ask another? My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it OK to call the police?

Here’s one that’s really important, ‘cause we’ve got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean, Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?

Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side?

Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?

Think about those questions, would you?”

Wiser Than Our Enemies

Now, pause for a minute and consider President Bartlet’s words. How would you respond to him? Is he correct in his understanding of the Old Testament? Is it silly for Christians to advocate any moral positions based on Old Testament laws?

These are questions that each of us, as Bible-believing Christians, have to be able to answer. Remember, like President Bartlet, the world will not hesitate to use God’s Word against us. We have to therefore be ready to answer these difficult questions without throwing the Bible under the bus.

In light of these criticisms, my purpose in writing this series of articles is to provide you with the tools necessary to respond confidently and effectively to those who challenge the morality of the Old Testament laws. More importantly, my goal is to actually challenge you, the reader, to study these laws and apply them to your life.

Does this mean that you might have to give up eating bacon? Not if you correctly understand and apply God’s law. Yet to do this accurately requires that we do a bit of work. Not only do we need to learn about the original context of the Old Testament laws, we also need to see how those laws apply now that Jesus Christ has come.

The first part of this series will address the foundational questions that we must answer before we start asking about eating bacon and wearing two different kinds of fabric. We need to know what God’s law is, why it matters, and what Jesus and the Apostles had to say about it. We need to know what purpose it continues to serve, if any, in the lives of 21^st Century Christians. Only then, when that foundation is laid, will we be able to look at how to apply specific laws from the Old Testament.

The analysis of specific laws, such as the Ten Commandments, will be addressed at a future time. But even when I do look at them individually, my purpose will not be to exhaustively see how each law would apply in the modern world. Rather, I intend to organize each law categorically in order to present a broader understanding of the wisdom, beauty, and uniqueness of God’s law.

Ultimately, my goal is that you would come away from this series with a greater love and appreciation for God’s law, as well as a desire to apply it to your own life as a Christian. Jesus himself intends for his followers to “go and bear fruit” and that their “fruit should abide.”^[1] Yet what does that fruit look like? What is the connection, if any, between obeying God’s law and bearing fruit? These are questions that I intend to help you answer over the course of the next several months.

Defining Terms

Before we begin, it is always important for us to define terms, especially on a topic as weighty as God’s law. At the most basic level, a law can be defined as an obligation placed by a superior (i.e., the law giver) upon a subordinate (i.e., the law receiver). Furthermore, it is binding in such a way that if the receiver violates the law, a debt is owed to the giver.

In the scientific realm, a law is not so much a moral obligation as it is something that explains an observed universal behavior. That is, scientific laws are focused more on the “is” rather than the “ought.” If a scientist says that the rock in his hand “ought” to fall when he lets go of it, he is neither implying that the rock has the ability to disobey the law of gravity nor that it would be morally culpable for doing so if it somehow failed to fall.

Yet, when we speak about laws regarding human behavior, we are speaking more about the “ought” than the “is.” A person “ought” to behave a certain way, not because he naturally tends to do so but because he would be held accountable for not doing so. To violate the law would result in some sort of debt to the law-giver. This would be followed by a set of negative experiences. Some of those effects might simply be the natural results of a particular action, while others might be specifically given as punishment for the debt incurred. Either way, these types of laws imply a certain standard of behavior. That standard is determined by the law-giver. And so, all laws have law-givers. In the case of God’s law, God is the law-giver. He imposes obligations of behavior upon mankind that, when broken, incur a debt that must be paid.

At this point we need to pause and consider what we mean when we refer to “God’s law.” Which laws? And for whom? Well, in a very broad sense, God’s law refers to the standard of behavior that He holds all of humanity accountable to. It is the standard of perfect holiness and righteousness that reflects God’s nature and character.

The Question of Covenant

One thing to keep in mind is that God’s law, like God himself, has unchanging aspects to it. These are often referred to as universal moral principles or the moral law (more on that later). But, the specific application of these principles upon mankind have experienced changes throughout the ages. These changes were not due to a change in God’s character but were based upon mankind’s covenantal relationship to God. This word, covenant, is key in our discussion of God’s law, as it will help us to avoid falling into a variety of errors. Simply put, God has interacted with mankind through different covenants, each of which has slight differences in terms and obligations. How we understand the relationship between the covenants, and the inauguration of the New Covenant, is going to drive how we understand God’s law.

While I do not intend to enter into a lengthy analysis of Covenant Theology, New Covenant Theology, or Dispensational Theology, I want to provide you with some basic principles for understanding the various covenants in Scripture.

To begin, a covenant is, quite simply, an oath-bound commitment or promise involving two or more parties.^[2] A common modern example of a covenant is the bond of marriage. A man and a woman, having an already established relationship, enter into a more formal oath-bound commitment that involves the making of promises and the giving of a sign, or seal. Both the husband and the wife have obligations to one another, but their commitment is not based on the performance of the other person. It is a promise.

Although much more could be said on covenants, this is the basic structure of how God interacts with His people throughout Scripture. The first covenant, between God and Adam, involved certain blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. For Adam, obedience involved being fruitful and multiplying, exercising dominion over the earth, keeping and tending the garden, and not eating the forbidden fruit.^[3] When the covenant was broken, a debt was incurred and death entered the world.

The second covenant, between God and Noah, was a slightly altered version of the first covenant. The obligations regarding being fruitful and exercising dominion remained the same, yet Noah and his descendants were now allowed to eat meat, so long as there was no blood in it. God signed and sealed this covenant in providing the rainbow.^[4]

The third covenant, between God and Abraham, involved God promising Abraham a people and a land. A new obligation on Abraham’s part was to be circumcised and to have all the males in his household circumcised. This obligation served also as a sign of the covenant for all of Abraham’s descendants, much like the rainbow was a sign for all of Noah’s descendants.^[5]

The fourth major covenant, between God and the people of Israel, with Moses as their representative, involved the giving of a set of obligations (i.e., the Mosaic Law) when God redeemed Israel out of slavery in Egypt. These obligations, summarily expressed in the Ten Commandments, were written on tablets of stone and placed in the Ark of the Covenant to serve as the covenant documents between God and His people.^[6]

It is these obligations given in the Mosaic Law that we tend to refer to when we talk about God’s law today. Of course, there is nothing wrong in doing this, for a strong case could be made that when the New Testament speaks of “the law” it is generally referring to the obligations set forth in the Mosaic Covenant. In any case, the use of the phrase “the law” in Scripture must always be determined by the context of the passage in which it appears.

Similarly, when referring to God’s law, we must take care to be accurate and consistent in what we are saying. God’s standard of righteousness is not only presented in the Mosaic Covenant but in other covenants as well. Both the New Testament and the Old Testament contain specific commands for God’s people. So how are we to put them all together? How are we to understand the covenants, including their obligations, in relation to one another?

The key to this is recognizing the covenant that we are currently under. Today, that is the New Covenant, inaugurated by the life, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ. Not only does it contain both promises and obligations for those who are partakers of it, but it also is confirmed by signs and seals.^[7]

Conclusion

Ultimately, if we are going to properly understand and apply God’s law as it is commonly defined (i.e. the Mosaic law), we need to view it in light of Christ and the New Covenant. God’s law, at its core, simply refers to what people are obligated to believe, say, and do at any given time. Under the Old Covenant, that would have clearly been the Ten Commandments and all its associated laws. But since we are living under the New Covenant era, we can rightly define “God’s law” as what people are obligated to believe, say, and do in a world where Christ is Lord of lords and King of kings. This does not mean that we can discard the Mosaic Law as an artifact of history. Rather, it means that we need to look at the Mosaic Law from the perspective of those standing on this side of the cross.

Yet before we go any further, we need to take some time to consider two misconceptions that appear to be common among evangelicals today: that the presence of the Holy Spirit within believers makes studying the Old Testament law unnecessary and that Christ’s fulfillment of the Old Testament law makes it irrelevant. I will be addressing each of these misconceptions over the next several articles.

[1] John 15:16

[2] Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant, 132.

[3] Genesis 1:26-30; 2:15-17.

[4] Genesis 9:1-17.

[5] Genesis 17:1-14.

[6] Deuteronomy 4:1-14.

[7] Jesus explicitly mentions the Lord’s Supper as a sign, or ordinance, of the New Covenant in Matthew 26:28.

Subscribe now

Introduction

Recently, Pastor Kevin DeYoung published an article titled 6 Questions for Christian Nationalists. While his article was certainly not directed at me, as a Christian Nationalist I believe that his questions are good, and are worth responding to in order to advance the conversation. But before going into each of the six questions, I want to address what DeYoung says at the outset. He begins by stating several reasons for why he does not like the term ‘Christian Nationalist’:

1. There is no shared definition among Christian Nationalists.

2. One of the most prominent books, I presume the one by Dr. Stephen Wolfe, is disagreeable to DeYoung in many ways.

3. Nationalism itself is problematic to DeYoung, especially when tied to religion.

4. The loudest advocates for Christian Nationalism engage in insults and are sympathetic to racism, antisemitism, and Nazism.

In responding to this, I would say that it does not bother me if someone chooses not to adopt the label “Christian Nationalist.” But I also have no problem with the term, if defined properly. For example, when I publicly spoke at my local school board meeting and said that there were only two genders, I was labeled by the local newspaper as a Christian Nationalist. I therefore embraced the term, for I decided to not let the enemies of God make me live in fear of being called names.

That being said, here are my thoughts on DeYoung’s four reasons:

1. There is no agreed-upon definition for many important and useful terms. The term “Puritan” has a negative connotation to it, and the Puritans themselves had significant differences. For example, some Puritans advocated for enforced Presbyterianism across England, while other Puritans advocated for independent churches. Still others fled England for the American colonies. The same can be said for the definition of “Reformed.” Some would argue that, as a Baptist, I have no business calling myself Reformed. Others would say that “Reformed” only applies to soteriology (TULIP) or the Five Solas of the Reformation. So, the lack of a shared definition is not necessarily problematic, because there are numerous other situations where a term is still fine to use despite not having a uniform definition.
   

2. While Dr. Wolfe’s book is prominent, many other books have been written before him that advocated for things like Theonomy (not necessarily Christian Nationalism). To be clear, there is overlap between Christian Nationalism and Theonomy, with Theonomy being a subset of Christian Nationalism (broadly defined). Personally, I have read Dr. Wolfe’s book and agree with much of it, but disagree with other parts. Even so, I do not think that Dr. Wolfe is deviating at all from the historical position of the Magisterial Reformers. For my part, I have no problem disagreeing with Wolfe, since I also do not agree with everything that the Reformers advocated for.

3. Refusing to adopt the word “nationalism” is a matter of taste. Some people have negative feelings about that word, while others do not. To be clear, there is a form of nationalism that can include the bigotry and mistreatment of other nations. But there is also an older concept of nationalism that simply refers to the love of one’s nation and a desire to pursue the good of that nation. In short, the Fascists and Nazis ruined the term “nationalism” for the rest of us. But the term “nationalism” pre-existed those groups.
   

4. Identifying the loudest voices of Christian Nationalism is, in many ways, subjective. Do we count the number of tweets, likes, or views? There will always be trolls and degenerates within every group and movement. This is nothing new. In the New Testament, there were numerous false believers and sinners who associated themselves with either Jesus or the Church. Simon the Magician, Ananias and Sapphira, and Judas Iscariot are examples. The best we can do is rebuke such people and put them under Church discipline. At times, we just have to ignore them. Satan is always going to want to take something good/useful and drag it through the mud. This includes terms life “Reformed” and “Puritan,” and it also includes “Christian Nationalism” and “Theonomy.”

At this point, I will now response to each of DeYoung’s six questions and then his conclusion.

Response to Question 1

As long as we are defining terms properly, then I completely denounce antisemitism, racism, and Nazism without hesitation. But we should keep in mind that there are some Christians who would say that if we do not hold to Dispensationalism and defend the nation of Israel as God’s chosen people, then we are antisemitic. So, again, even the term ‘antisemitism’ does not have a universally agreed upon definition among Christians. But that does not mean we should never use the term.

Response to Question 2

DeYoung affirms that nations can be judged by God, but, citing Robert Dabney, he does not think that a nation can be viewed as a “corporate moral person.”

I would disagree with both Dabney and DeYoung on this point. There is a covenantal aspect to nationhood in which both the individual and the corporate act in a moral manner. The “association of persons” mentioned by Dabney is not just a random gaggle. It is a covenanted body (i.e., a constituted body). And by covenant I am not saying that it is equivalent to the Mosiac Covenant. There are covenants beyond those between God and his people. Marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and God. And there are also civic covenants (like between Jacob and Laban) regarding land boundaries. Interestingly, the Latin word foedus, where we get the word ‘federal’ or ‘federalism’, simply means ‘covenant’. And so, I would argue that states and nations are covenanted groups.

Consider the church as a corporate body. The church is made up of believers, but we know that not everyone is regenerate. Furthermore, the church is analogous to the human body. And a human body is not just a collection of random toes, fingers, hair, teeth, and eyeballs. It has all those things, but those things fit together in a coordinated manner for a joint purpose.

A nation is similar. It is not just a random smattering of people all tossed onto one piece of land. It is a type of body. Interestingly, in our judicial system, both corporations and states/nations are legally treated as persons. Consider the following things that nations do:

1. States/Nations can own property.

2. States/Nations can commit crimes.

3. States/Nations can be sued in court.

4. States/Nations can make deliberate moral/ethical decisions.

5. States/Nations can enter into agreements and treaties with others.

6. States/Nations can make, and break, promises.

7. States/Nations can engage in self-defense of both people and property.

8. States/Nations can be healthy or unhealthy.

9. States/Nations can mourn or celebrate corporately (i.e., national holidays)

10. States/Nations can have a distinct culture/identity (i.e., personality)

Also note that the above things are things that persons do, suggesting that corporate bodies can act as persons.

Having said all of this, I do agree with Dabney when he says that “the way to make a Christian nation is to make the people in the nation Christian.” But I would add that as more and more individuals become Christians they will begin to do “Christian things” at a corporate level. This not only includes forming and joining churches, but also creating and forming other institutions such as civil orders or businesses that operate in submission to Christ as Lord.

Now, DeYoung recognizes that nations “can outlaw abortion, sodomy, and pornography.” But then he suggests that Christian Nationalists like Doug Wilson are advocating for the criminalization of things like mammon-worship because such things also “make God angry.” This appears to be attacking a strawman, as Christian Nationalists such as Doug Wilson and Stephen Wolfe have, on multiple occasions, explained the difference between sins and crimes. When Wilson says that we should stop doing things that make God angry, the charitable way to understand that statement is to take it as a figure of speech, not necessarily a desire to punish thought-crimes.

From my perspective as a Theonomist, the domain in which the civil magistrate can operate is determined by Scripture. Neither Christian Nationalists nor Theonomists are asking for the civil magistrate to punish sins of the heart. But, contrary to DeYoung’s position, I have no problem with the civil magistrate punishing certain religious expressions. For example, while we should not expect or ask the civil magistrate to force people to stop serving Allah in their hearts, we can ask the civil magistrate to not allow the Muslim call to prayer in the public square. But, regardless of what position we hold on matters of religious expression, we need to look to God’s law-word to see what responsibilities he has given to the civil magistrate.

Response to Question 3

In asking this question, DeYoung seems to be misunderstanding the Christian Nationalist idea that the government has the authority “to direct man to his highest and heavenly good.” Now, I personally do not use that phrase, but prefer the phrase “praise the good” from Romans 13. Civil magistrates are to praise that which is good, including obedience to the living God. That is, civil rulers should verbally and publicly encourage and promote both the worship of God and obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ. In this way, the civil magistrate does direct a man to his highest and heavenly good using words and declarations. Additionally, I believe that civil magistrates can and should protect the Sabbath so that citizens have the opportunity and encouragement to worship God. This is something that was enforced even in 19^th Century Pennsylvania (see Mohney v. Cook, 1855). By establishing Sabbath laws, the civil government is orienting/pointing someone or encouraging/guiding someone to use the Lord’s Day for its purpose. Similarly, by calling for days of prayer, fasting, or thanksgiving (as both Thomas Jefferson and George Washington did), the civil government is directing the people toward heavenly things.

DeYoung continues to misunderstand the Christian Nationalist position when he suggests that Christian Nationalism is “concerned with the whole perfection of man.” While I personally do not use such language, neither Dr. Wolfe nor Pastor Wilson use that phrase to suggest that the government can remove the corruption of sin from within the human heart. The language of perfection should be understood similarly to the language of “a more perfect union” used by the Founding Fathers. They did not use the phrase to refer to sinlessness or lack of corruption, but rather were speaking about an improved functionality and completeness.

DeYoung goes on to contrast Christian Nationalism with the American founding by saying that the latter focused on designing a government that will frustrate man’s sinful inclinations. Again, I believe that DeYoung is attacking a strawman. From what I have seen, Christian Nationalists are not bemoaning the Constitution (although I could be mistaken on this point). As a Theonomist, I have great respect for the Constitution. In fact, I would argue that the American experiment was directly influenced by the example of the Republic of Israel in the Old Testament. Consider these statements from Pastor Samuel Langdon in 1788 in his sermon titled, The Republic of the Israelites an Example to the American States. Of note, Pastor Langdon was also the President of Harvard in the 1770s.

“As to everything excellent in their constitution of government, except what was peculiar to them as a nation separated to God from the rest of mankind, the Israelites may be considered as a pattern to the world in all ages; and from them we may learn what will exalt our character, and what will depress and bring us to ruin.”

“That as God in the course of his kind providence hath given you an excellent constitution of government, founded on the most rational, equitable, and liberal principles, by which all that liberty is secured which a people can reasonably claim, and you are empowered to make righteous laws for promoting public order and good morals; and as he has moreover given you by his Son Jesus Christ, who is far superior to Moses, a complete revelation of his will, and a perfect system of true religion, plainly delivered in the sacred writings; it will be your wisdom in the eyes of the nations, and your true interest and happiness, to conform your practice in the strictest manner to the excellent principles of your government, adhere faithfully to the doctrines and commands of the gospel, and practice every public and private virtue.”

Whether or not Christians today agree with Pastor Langdon’s statements, we ought to recognize that they show the context in which the United States was formed. But DeYoung declares that the government should not determine true religion from false religion. I argue that it must do so at some point. For how can it decide which organizations qualify as religions for the purposes of tax exemption? And consider the office of military chaplain. To be a military chaplain, a person must receive his ordination/endorsement from a Christian denomination recognized by the federal government. Of course, the chaplaincy has now expanded beyond Christianity, whereas fifty years ago there were no Wiccan chaplains. But the point stills stands that the civil magistrate must always distinguish between true and false religions in some way and at some point.

Response to Question 4

In this question, DeYoung considers the phrase “promote the true religion.” He then expresses disagreement with the idea of state-sponsored religion. Now, as a Theonomist, I sympathize with him and recognize that this is a point of disagreement between Theonomists and many Christian Nationalists. To DeYoung’s point, I do not think it is a good idea to have either a national church or a state church. That being said, a state church is actually completely constitutional under the First Amendment as it originally was understood. For example, in the early 1800s New Hampshire had established congregationalism, in which congregational churches were supported by taxation. Today we might say that such activity was unwise, but we cannot say that it was unconstitutional.

Even in states where there was no establishment of a denomination, there was still a requirement of basic Christian belief for civil magistrates to hold office. Here is an excerpt from the Pennsylvania Charter of 1701:

“And that all Persons who also profess to believe in Jesus Christ, the Savior of the World, shall be capable (notwithstanding their other Persuasions and Practices in Point of Conscience and Religion) to serve this Government in any Capacity.”

And here is an excerpt from the 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution regarding elected officials:

“And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration: I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration.”

Would DeYoung approve of such a requirement today? He seems to indicate that he would, just as I would.

In fact, it is probably at this point that DeYoung and I agree the most. For he is critical of the original Westminster Confession of Faith’s statement regarding the duties of the civil magistrate. I join him in those criticisms while also making the following qualifications:

1. I believe there is a role for the civil magistrate to protect the Sabbath and to punish blasphemy. In fact, blasphemy was punished in Pennsylvania well into the 1800s (see Updegraph v. Commonwealth, 1824).
   

2. I do not think that the civil magistrate can call for a church council or synod to resolve doctrinal disputes, but I have no problem with the civil magistrate asking for a gathering of church leaders to help figure out the best course of action regarding a civil matter or matter of justice/law.
   

3. DeYoung does not like the idea of the civil magistrate determining true religion, and even says that government is not competent to answer metaphysical and spiritual questions. But is it a metaphysical question to ask whether or not God exists? What about whether or not there are two genders or if gender is a social construct? What about whether or not unborn babies are persons? The government has to be able to answer these questions. But even if we only refer to matters of doctrine, it would be strange to say that the government is incompetent or unable to answer such questions. We could perhaps say that it is not the government’s responsibility to answer such questions, but I would not say that it is unable to do so. For example, if I were to run for public office and become elected, I would not immediately lose my theological beliefs or my ability to read, interpret, and apply Scripture. It might not be my responsibility to do so as an elected official, but it would be strange to say that I am unable to discern theological matters as a governor, senator, or congressman.

Response to Question 5

In this question concerning the First Amendment, I agree with DeYoung that the amendment does not require that Christian symbols be removed from the public square. But I do not think that the amendment requires us to treat non-Christian religions as equal to the Christian faith. As I mentioned before, multiple states had established churches even after the First Amendment was adopted. Furthermore, there were both Sabbath laws and blasphemy laws that were enforced even in the very inclusive state of Pennsylvania. This can only make sense if one recognizes that the First Amendment was primarily referring to the Christian religion and avoiding the establishment of one denomination over another at the federal level. It was in no way treating non-Christian religions as equal to Christianity.

This does not mean that people do not have a basic liberty of conscience and freedom to private worship. The early American Jews were protected because they did not attempt to dominate the public square, violate the Christian Sabbath, or blaspheme Jesus publicly. And so, as long as a citizen chooses to keep his non-Christian faith private, he is protected by the First Amendment. But the First Amendment does not allow for the public Muslim call to prayer or the erecting of a large Hindu idol.

Interestingly, when DeYoung responds to Wilson’s references to Islamic honor killings and Aztec human sacrifice, DeYoung says that those activities are already illegal and are therefore not applicable examples. But DeYoung misses the point. Why are such things illegal in the first place? Why not allow such practices? They are only illegal because our law system, founded on English Common Law, was formed and influenced from Scripture. This dates back to the late 800s when King Alfred the Great published his law code and placed the Mosaic Law at the very front of it. If we were under Sharia Law, honor killings would not be a problem at all.

What concerns me the most at this point is DeYoung’s statement that Muslim worship and practice must be “an Americanized Islam.” I fear that what he is hoping for is an impossibility. Can Muslim worship and practice truly be Americanized to the point that it can occupy the public square while submitting itself to a law system that is fundamentally Christian in origin? Events in England, Minnesota, and Michigan seem to indicate otherwise.

In the case of other non-Christian religions, like Mormonism, they were required to conform to a Christian law-code. For example, when Utah wanted to become a state, it had to adopt monogamy and ban polygamy before Congress granted it statehood (see The Enabling Act of 1894). I say this to show that non-Christian religions can exist so long as they do not seek to change/undermine the law system and do not seek to dominate the public square.

Response to Question 6

When it comes to this question, I would agree with DeYoung that Christian Nationalists do not all have the same vision of what a nation should look like. But, as a reminder, the same could be said of the Puritans. Some wanted to force the Presbyterian system across England, Scotland, and Ireland. Others, like Oliver Cromwell, wanted to allow for independent churches.

As a Theonomist, I would argue that the Republic of Israel in the Old Testament serves as a model for the best political order in any nation, not just America. Other Christian Nationalists would not hold this position, but I believe (along with Samuel Langdon, whom I quoted earlier) that Israel is a pattern given to us by which we should establish civil society. To reinforce this point, here is a citation from Daniel Elazar’s book, Exploring Federalism. Elazar is President of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and the Director of the Center for the Study of Federalism at Temple University.

“There have been three critical federal experiments in the history of humanity to date. The Israelite tribal federation described in the Bible was the first. More than three thousand years ago, it formulated the founding principle of federalism by transforming the vassal treaty among unequals into a covenant among equal partners that led to the establishment of a polity of tribes maintaining their liberties within the framework of a common constitution and law. Although external pressures ultimately brought about the demise of the tribal federation as a regime, the Jewish people lived on as the first federal people, and they have continued to use federal principles in their internal organization to the present day. The second was the Swiss Confederation. Seven hundred years ago it preserved liberty in medieval Europe. Later it fostered the principal liberating stream of the Protestant Reformation and survived to create a garden spot in the world, self-governed by free people. The third was the United States of America. Two hundred years ago it became the first modern federation and, more recently, the first federal superpower, which showed the way to combine freedom and federalism in a continental-sized polity.” (emphasis mine)

Although I appreciate, and agree with, much of DeYoung’s look at political history among the Reformed faith, my primary counter-argument is that we need to get our ultimate direction from Scripture. I do not believe that God is silent about how large groups of people organize themselves, and how civil magistrates are to pursue justice here on earth. We should always be reforming, not just within the Church but within the civil sphere as well.

Conclusion

DeYoung ends his article with the argument that the Christian Nationalist vision is simply not practical at this time. He argues that we need to be realists and avoid idealism. But I would argue that a healthy balance is needed. Certainly, the Apostles and the early Church fathers articulated how Christians should ideally behave and how churches should ideally function. And, in many ways, the Church has improved over time. Most Bible-believing churches are not celebrating men having sex with their father’s wives or getting drunk at the Lord’s Supper. We should be thankful for such progress.

Similarly, we can and should pursue progress in our families, businesses, and societies. This is nothing more than a corporate form of sanctification. As Christians, we can and should have an idea of what we are aiming for. To give an example, if a Christian man runs for public office, he should have a goal in mind that is firmly grounded in Scripture. William Wilberforce was such a man, who did not see the slave trade end until several decades of hard work. Despite facing great opposition, even from Christians, Wilberforce continued his efforts and trusted in God. We should do the same.

But DeYoung seems to ridicule idealism when he says that “those with the most outlandish proposals are the ones farthest from any levels of power and most distant from any established institution.” Well, I would say that I probably have some outlandish proposals (abolishing property tax, abolishing public schools, abolishing abortion, abolishing no-fault divorce, privatizing roads, etc.). But as someone who has been in the government for 19 years, I would not say that I am distant from any established institution.

DeYoung goes on to boldly proclaim that “we are not overturning the Nineteenth Amendment” and that “America is not going to become a general equity theonomic republic.” My response, to borrow a phrase from a good friend of mine, would be, “Not with that attitude!”

But, in all seriousness, I would counter with the fact that, in 1776, there were Americans who doubted that slavery would ever end in the United States. Furthermore, who could have ever imagined in 1800 that our nation would one day enact the prohibition of alcohol and then remove that amendment 13 years after enacting it? And how many people on September 11, 2001 would have believed that New York would be run by a Communist Muslim just over 20 years later? Anyone making those claims would have been accused of being an idealist or just plain insane. But here we are.

Now, DeYoung is correct when he points out that none of these things will happen overnight. And, to his point, we probably cannot bulldoze the Buddhist temple immediately. But we should keep in mind that there was a time when there were no casinos in Pennsylvania. It might take time to get rid of them, along with all of the Planned Parenthood clinics and strip clubs, but we should not stop trying.

And it is worth mentioning here that none of this requires a Postmillennial eschatology. Christians of any eschatological perspective should be okay with pursuing (through legal means) the closure of casinos, abortion clinics, and strip clubs. And doing the same with a 155-foot Hindu statue of Lord Murugan in North Carolina should not be off the table.

On a brief sidenote, while Theonomy does not require a Postmillennial eschatology, Postmillennialism allows for long-term planning while not being discouraged or demoralized by temporary declines or setbacks. But I am not Postmillennial simply because it is encouraging and optimistic. I believe that it is the only way to consistently understand the story of redemption. And while time does not allow me to expound upon the numerous applicable passages, I want to say a few brief words about Isaiah 9 and 1 Corinthians 15.

In the case of Isaiah 9:6-7, I do not know how else we can understand the text when it says, “of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end…from this time forth and forevermore.” When did Jesus start shouldering the government and when was the kingdom of God first inaugurated? And if that began at his resurrection and ascension (when he said that all authority on heaven and earth had been given to him), then what does it mean for his government to increase with no end from “this time forth and forevermore?” Paired with the parables of the mustard seed and leaven, as well as with the small stone from the book of Daniel, a strong case can be made for Postmillennialism.

As for 1 Corinthians 15:24-26, when Paul speaks of Christ’s return, he says that Christ will “deliver the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.” Paul then says that Jesus “must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.” Well, if Christ is reigning now (which many of our Christmas hymns affirm, along with the words of Jesus himself at the Great Commission), then this reign is going to increase and grow until all of Christ’s enemies are destroyed. But the last enemy, death itself, will not be destroyed until the resurrection of the dead, which will happen when Christ returns. This picture that Paul paints lines up quite well with Isaiah 9. Taken together, we see that Christ reigns even now over both heaven and earth as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. And this reign will continue to grow and increase throughout history until it is time for Christ to defeat the last enemy, death. This is the Postmillennial hope. The hope of the gospel.

Returning now to the realm of American politics, even though I am a Postmillennial Theonomist, I recognize that nothing will change overnight (or even in my lifetime). Nor do I necessarily advocate for ending things immediately even if we had the votes to do so. For example, I believe that the welfare state should end completely. But cutting off all federal benefits programs cold turkey would probably be devastating for too many people who have become dependent upon the government. Such programs have to be ended over time, like a drug addict who needs to get clean. This requires wisdom and can be filed under the category of ‘statecraft’.

But, contrary to DeYoung’s article, taking steps to pursue justice and reform the government is not an attempt to “realize heaven on earth.” There have been good societies and bad societies, and there have been times where great injustices were being committed by civil magistrates. We can probably all agree that the American experiment was a great improvement over Tsarist Russia or medieval England. But why was it better? I would argue, as Elazar does, that it was better because America patterned itself very closely after the federalist Republic of Israel in the Old Testament. I would also add that this only continued to work so long as the people of America remained faithful to the Lord Jesus Christ.

In the end, DeYoung says that he wants “more Christian ideas in the public square.” But would that include ideas like Christian Nationalism and Theonomy? He also says that he wants “more sincere and wise Christians in positions of power.” Fair enough. But what should they do and pursue when they get into positions of power? I would argue that Scripture must be our guide. And if God says that the civil magistrate can answer certain questions, wield certain amounts of power, and punish evil while praising the good, then we must trust that God knows what he is talking about. We should not claim to be wiser than God and say that the civil magistrate is not allowed to do what God has ordained it to do. Rather, we should recognize and affirm that God calls the civil magistrate his deacon, or servant, to act as an avenger against the evildoer. And even though the current government of the United States is drifting further from God, we have a duty to call the civil magistrate back to obedience and to teach the magistrate what it means to do justice.