“Theonomy in Christian Ethics”: A 1689 Confessional Examination

Offered respecfully.

Greg L. Bahnsen’s Theonomy in Christian Ethics (1977) reignited debate over the role of Old Testament law in modern society. Bahnsen’s thesis – often summarized as “the abiding validity of the law in exhaustive detail” (The Historical Background of Theonomic Ethics | Sam Waldron - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) – argues that the Mosaic civil laws, including their penal sanctions, remain morally binding unless the New Testament explicitly indicates otherwise (A 1689 Baptist Perspective: Confessionalism and Theonomy - 9Marks) (A 1689 Baptist Perspective: Confessionalism and Theonomy - 9Marks). This position, known as theonomy, stands in tension with the historic Reformed view expressed in confessions like the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession (2LBCF). The 2LBCF, following the Westminster Confession, teaches that the civil (judicial) laws given to Israel expired with the Old Covenant, and oblige other nations now only in their “general equity” (the underlying principles of justice) (The Historical Background of Theonomic Ethics | Sam Waldron - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) (A 1689 Baptist Perspective: Confessionalism and Theonomy - 9Marks).

This article offers a thematic overview and biblical response to Bahnsen’s theonomic ethics from a confessional Reformed Baptist perspective. Drawing on respected non-theonomic Reformed theologians – especially Dr. Sam Waldron and Dr. David VanDrunen, as well as Richard Barcellos, Vern Poythress, and others – we will examine key issues: the role of Mosaic civil law today, continuity and discontinuity between Old and New Covenants, the concept of general equity, the law-gospel distinction in redemptive history, the scriptural function of civil government, and an analysis of Bahnsen’s exegesis of pivotal texts (e.g. Matthew 5:17–19; Romans 13). Our goal is to show where Bahnsen’s assumptions and interpretations diverge from historic Reformed orthodoxy and biblical theology, particularly as summarized in the 1689 Confession.

The Mosaic Civil Law: Expired or Binding Today?

Bahnsen’s Thesis – Abiding Validity: Bahnsen contends that all Old Testament laws, including Israel’s civil statutes, continue to bind civil governments today unless the New Testament clearly abrogates them (A 1689 Baptist Perspective: Confessionalism and Theonomy - 9Marks). He writes: “We must recognize the continuing obligation of civil magistrates to obey and enforce the relevant laws of the Old Testament, including the penal sanctions specified by the just Judge of all the earth… We must presume continuity of binding authority regarding the socio-political commandments revealed as standing law in the Old Testament” (A 1689 Baptist Perspective: Confessionalism and Theonomy - 9Marks). In Theonomy in Christian Ethics, Bahnsen sums up his concern as demonstrating “that the Christian is obligated to keep the whole law of God as a pattern of sanctification and that this law is to be enforced by the civil magistrate where and how the stipulations of God so designate” (A 1689 Baptist Perspective: Confessionalism and Theonomy - 9Marks). In short, Bahnsen asserts that the Mosaic judicial laws are a universal standard of justice for all nations, as much a part of God’s moral law as the Ten Commandments.

The Confessional Reformed View – Expiration of Israel’s Judicial Law: In stark contrast, the Reformed confessional tradition (both Presbyterian and Baptist) holds that the judicial/civil laws given to Israel were unique to the Old Covenant theocracy and are not binding on other nations as such. The 1689 Baptist Confession (19.4) states: “To [Israel] also He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people; not obliging any now by virtue of that institution; their general equity only being of moral use.” (A 1689 Baptist Perspective: Confessionalism and Theonomy - 9Marks) According to this view, when the ancient Israelite nation ended, its civil laws likewise “expired” and no longer oblige any nation by virtue of being Israel’s law – only the general equity (i.e. the underlying principles of justice and righteousness) continues to be relevant. The Westminster Confession (19.4) uses identical language (The Historical Background of Theonomic Ethics | Sam Waldron - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary), reflecting a broad Reformed consensus.

John Calvin, a primary influence on the Westminster divines, explicitly taught the expiration of the Mosaic polity. Anticipating later debates, Calvin warned that it is “false and foolish” to claim that a civil government must enforce the polity of Moses: “For some deny that a state is well constituted which neglects the polity of Moses and is governed by the common laws of the nations. The dangerous and seditious nature of this opinion…I have evinced to be false and foolish.”(The Historical Background of Theonomic Ethics | Sam Waldron - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) (The Historical Background of Theonomic Ethics | Sam Waldron - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) Calvin explains that every nation’s laws should aim at the same equity – the principles of justice rooted in nature and God’s moral law – but the specific “constitutions” or statutes will appropriately differ from those of Moses’ law given the different circumstances (The Historical Background of Theonomic Ethics | Sam Waldron - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) (The Historical Background of Theonomic Ethics | Sam Waldron - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary). For example, theft must be punished in every society, but one nation may require double restitution while another uses imprisonment, and “there is no impropriety” in such diversity so long as justice (“the same equity”) is upheld (The Historical Background of Theonomic Ethics | Sam Waldron - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary). Thus, historic Reformed orthodoxy affirmed that Mosaic civil laws are not a universal code; they were just and wise for Israel’s context, but other nations are free to craft their own specific laws so long as they reflect the same general righteousness.

Bahnsen’s Reinterpretation of “General Equity”: Faced with the clear confessional statement that Israel’s judicial laws have expired, Bahnsen attempts to reinterpret it in line with his thesis. In an appendix to Theonomy in Christian Ethics, Bahnsen argued that the Westminster divines’ phrase “general equity” was not a loophole to discard the Mosaic case laws, but rather a way to apply them cross-culturally. He suggests the only thing that “expired” was “the particular cultural expression of a judicial law”, while “the law itself in its cross-cultural general equity” remains binding ( Concerning Theonomy | Effectual Grace ) ( Concerning Theonomy | Effectual Grace ). In other words, Bahnsen claims general equitymeans the case laws minus their ancient Near Eastern cultural form – effectively, the Mosaic laws still oblige us, just “adapted” to modern culture ( Concerning Theonomy | Effectual Grace ).

This reading is at odds with the historical intent of the Confession and the Reformed tradition. As Dr. Sam Waldron observes, “for Dr. Bahnsen, ‘general equity’ does not refer to general moral principles underlying the case laws (i.e. the scope of the Ten Commandments)… Instead, ‘general equity’ refers to the case laws, minus their cultural expressions, to be applied in an equitable manner cross-culturally in today’s society.” ( Concerning Theonomy | Effectual Grace ) Bahnsen’s view effectively collapses the judicial laws into the moral law, asserting that every civil statute of Moses is just a specific instance of moral law and thus still valid (A 1689 Baptist Perspective: Confessionalism and Theonomy - 9Marks). This is a distinctive move away from historic Reformed thought ( Concerning Theonomy | Effectual Grace ). The Westminster divines plainly taught the expiration and non-obligation of the judicial laws “as given to Israel as a body politic” ( Concerning Theonomy | Effectual Grace ) – meaning those laws, as a legal code, were tied to Israel’s national institution and have ended with it. Bahnsen, however, speaks only of the passing of the cultural form of those laws, treating their moral content and even specific penalties as perpetually normative ( Concerning Theonomy | Effectual Grace ). In short, Bahnsen redefines general equity so broadly that it encompasses virtually the entire Mosaic civil code, whereas the 1689 Confession understands general equity as the principles of justice that can be gleaned from that code (not the code itself).

In summary, Bahnsen’s theonomy asserts the ongoing obligation of the Mosaic judicial laws (adjusted slightly for culture) on all societies, while the confessional Reformed stance sees those laws as having served their purpose in Israel and now having expired, except for their timeless moral principles. This fundamental disagreement over the role of the Mosaic civil law today sets the stage for further differences in how one understands Scripture’s approach to the Old and New Covenants, law and gospel, and the mandate of civil government.

Continuity and Discontinuity Between the Old and New Covenants

Underlying the debate is a hermeneutical question: How do the Old Covenant and its laws relate to the New Covenant established by Christ? Bahnsen’s approach emphasizes maximal continuity. He operates on an “Old Testament priority”principle (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary): unless the New Testament explicitly cancels or modifies an Old Testament law, that law remains in force. Bahnsen often compares this to the Reformed paedobaptist logic (continuity of infant inclusion unless NT says otherwise) and argues that we should “presume the abiding authority” of any OT commandment – including civil laws – until proven otherwise (A 1689 Baptist Perspective: Confessionalism and Theonomy - 9Marks). This hermeneutic leads him to retain the Mosaic judicials en bloc, apart from laws clearly categorized as ceremonial (sacrificial system, food laws, etc.).

By contrast, the 1689 Confessional perspective emphasizes planned discontinuity due to the fulfillment of God’s redemptive plan in Christ. The New Testament teaches that the coming of Christ has inaugurated a new covenant which renders the Old Covenant “obsolete” (Hebrews 8:13) and “abolished” (2 Corinthians 3:14; Hebrews 10:9) (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary). Dr. Tom Hicks summarizes: “Numerous passages of Scripture teach that the Old Covenant has been fulfilled and abolished with the coming of Christ and the establishment of the New Covenant.” (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) For example:

• Hebrews 7:12 – “When there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.” (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary)

• Hebrews 8:13 – “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete.” (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary)

• Ephesians 2:15 – Christ has broken down the Jew-Gentile wall by “abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances” (a reference to the Old Covenant ordinances as a whole) (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary).

Such texts indicate a redemptive-historical shift: with Christ’s work accomplished, the Mosaic legal economy – the entire system of law tied to the Sinai covenant – is set aside in favor of the new covenant arrangements. This does not mean God’s moral standards have changed or that God’s people are lawless. Rather, it means the Mosaic covenant, as a package of laws and ordinances given to govern Israel’s life and worship until Christ, has fulfilled its purpose and is no longer in force as a covenant.

Importantly, Reformed theology distinguishes between the moral law (rooted in God’s unchanging character and written on the human heart) and positive laws (commands given for a specific covenant or purpose, not known by nature alone). The moral law – summarily comprehended in the Ten Commandments – continues to bind all people, not because it was part of the Mosaic covenant, but because it reflects God’s eternal righteous character and the order of creation (A 1689 Baptist Perspective: Confessionalism and Theonomy - 9Marks) (A 1689 Baptist Perspective: Confessionalism and Theonomy - 9Marks). For example, 2LBCF 19.5 affirms that the moral law “doth forever bind all” and that Christ “in the Gospel in no way dissolves but much strengthens this obligation” (A 1689 Baptist Perspective: Confessionalism and Theonomy - 9Marks). The Decalogue was delivered at Sinai, but its content (the “same Law…first written in the heart of man” (A 1689 Baptist Perspective: Confessionalism and Theonomy - 9Marks)) has universal scope. By contrast, Israel’s civil and ceremonial laws were positive laws added for the duration of the Old Covenant. Dr. Hicks explains: “Positive law…God posited by way of special revelation in a particular covenant. No one would have known to obey [it] unless it had been revealed… The positive laws of the Old Covenant have been abolished.” (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) These include the entire judicial code given “by virtue of [Israel’s] institution” as a covenanted nation (A 1689 Baptist Perspective: Confessionalism and Theonomy - 9Marks).

In other words, the Old Covenant law had a built-in temporariness. Scripture itself says the Mosaic law was “added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come” (Galatians 3:19), and was a guardian until Christ, but now that Christ has come, we are no longer under that guardian (Galatians 3:24–25) (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary). The until implies an endpoint. When Christ inaugurated the New Covenant, the Old Covenant law (including its civil components) accomplished its purpose. As Dr. Richard Barcellos notes, “The New Testament clearly abrogates the whole Old Covenant, including the Decalogue, as it functioned within the Old Covenant, and yet borrows from its documents as the basis for New Covenant ethics.” (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) In other words, the entire law-covenant made at Sinai is set aside as a package; but its moral instructions are taken up into the New Testament ethical teaching, not because they were in Moses’ law, but because they are intrinsically moral or are reiterated by Christ and the apostles for the church. For example, nine of the Ten Commandments are explicitly reaffirmed in the New Testament as abiding moral duties (the exception being the Sabbath command, which Christians interpret in various ways, but even there the principle of regular rest and worship remains as general equity).

Gentile Nations Never Under the Mosaic Covenant: A crucial point often overlooked by theonomists is that the Law of Moses was given to Israel and no other nation. “Gentile nations are not and never were under the Old Covenant,” writes Hicks (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary). Romans 2:14–15 emphasizes that Gentiles “who do not have the [Mosaic] law” still have the work of the law written on their hearts (natural law) (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary). When God judged pagan nations in the Old Testament (e.g., Canaanites, Babylonians), He did not charge them with violating Israel’s ceremonial or civil statutes (they were never told to keep feast days or build parapets on their roofs). Rather, God held Gentile nations accountable to the moral law discernible in creation and conscience – things like idolatry, murder, oppression, and immorality (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary). The prophets condemn Tyre, Moab, Babylon, etc., for sins against basic justice and worship of the true God, not for failing to observe Israel’s distinctives (see Amos 1–2, Jeremiah 46–51, etc. (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary)). This underscores that the Mosaic covenant was a special arrangement for Israel. It was never a universal legal code for the nations, even in the Old Testament era. It would be odd, then, to assume that with Christ’s coming, God’s expectation suddenly is that all nationsmust enforce every Mosaic statute, when He never required that of the nations even prior to Christ.

What Continues? The Reformed “general equity” view, grounded in the continuity of the moral law, readily acknowledges continuity where it biblically exists: God’s moral standards are universal and unchanging. Any equity(justice, righteousness) embodied in the Mosaic civil laws continues to be instructive. We still learn from those laws what God loves and hates, what justice and mercy look like, and how to wisely apply moral principles. For example, the Mosaic law requiring a parapet (railing) on one’s roof to prevent fatal accidents (Deuteronomy 22:8) reflects a moral concern for the sanctity of life and the responsibility to take reasonable safety precautions. The general equity (“do not bring bloodguilt on your house”) still applies – we should take appropriate measures to prevent foreseeable harm to others (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary). But the specific form of the law (a railing on a flat-roofed house) expired with Israel’s architectural and covenantal context. Likewise, the principle of lex talionis (proportional justice, “an eye for an eye”) is a transcendent moral principle that predates Moses (Genesis 9:6) and undergirds all just penal systems (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary). Murder, for instance, is still a capital crime in principle because of the universal Noahic covenant: “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image” (Gen. 9:6) (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary). That moral principledid not depend on the Mosaic law – it applied to all humanity from Noah onward. In continuity, we affirm such moral truths.

However, the Mosaic code also contained many laws tied to Israel’s unique covenant status (e.g. land inheritance, tribal boundaries, ceremonial purity, holy war against idolatry). These had a built-in discontinuity. When Israel’s covenant ended, these laws ceased to function. For instance, many Mosaic civil laws presupposed life in the Promised Land of Canaan. Deuteronomy 4:14 says God gave Israel statutes “to do them in the land” which they were entering (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary). The very enforcement of the law was linked to dwelling in the holy land. A clear example is the law of the “devoted city” in Deuteronomy 13: if an Israelite city turned to idols, the whole city was to be devoted to destruction – its inhabitants and cattle killed and the city burned as a whole burnt offering to the Lord (Deut. 13:12–16) (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary). This drastic measure was not mere civil justice; it was herem (the ban), a holy war act of purging evil from God’s holy land as an act of worship (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) (The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses (Poythress) | The Puritan Board). Vern Poythress observes that this law “does not apply today for the simple reason that we do not offer ascension (burnt) sacrifices to purge the land. The land of Israel in the Old Testament was holy in a way that our nation-states today are not.” (The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses (Poythress) | The Puritan Board) The entire rationale of the law is tied to redemptive-history: God’s dwelling in the land and the sacrificial system. In the New Covenant, there is no holy geography for one nation to purge with the sword – the people of God are a spiritual nation scattered among all nations (1 Peter 2:9-10), and church discipline (not civil destruction) is the means of maintaining communal purity (1 Cor. 5:13) (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary). Thus, the general equity of Deuteronomy 13 is zeal for God’s pure worship, but not a warrant to literally burn cities. To apply such a law “woodenly” today would ignore its typological context (The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses (Poythress) | The Puritan Board) (The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses (Poythress) | The Puritan Board). Theonomists may respond that we should execute individual idolaters even if we cannot burn cities (the “underlying principle” they see is to penalize false worship). But Poythress rightly notes “that is not so easy” — Deuteronomy 13 is interwoven with ceremonial aspects (burnt offering, holy land) and is as much a ceremonial law as a civil case law (The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses (Poythress) | The Puritan Board). Its foundation lies in Israel’s role as a holy nation foreshadowing the final judgment, not in a timeless creation ordinance. Historic Reformed theologians recognized many judicial laws had this provisional, typological character: they were just for that time, but not intended as perennial statutes. For example, the death penalty for adultery in Israel served to underscore the spiritual harlotry of idolatry and to protect the covenant community’s holiness; yet John Calvin did not insist that every Christian commonwealth must execute adulterers, even if he personally believed adultery is a great sin deserving of serious punishment ( Concerning Theonomy | Effectual Grace ) ( Concerning Theonomy | Effectual Grace ). In practice some Reformers (and later Puritans) did enforce certain Mosaic penalties, but as we will note, their theoretical basis was often different from theonomists’.

In sum, the confessional Reformed view embraces continuity at the level of moral principles (grounded in God’s character and natural law) but affirms discontinuity at the level of covenantal codes. Bahnsen’s theonomy flattens this out, treating virtually all Old Covenant laws (save overtly ceremonial ones) as still in effect. This flattening fails to appreciate the Bible’s own indications of the epochal change brought by Christ. The New Testament authors, as we will see, consistently handle the Mosaic law as something that has reached fulfillment in Christ and must be read in that light – not simply carried over unchanged.

The General Equity of the Law: Principles, Not Literal Code

The concept of general equity is key to a confessional understanding of the law. “General equity” refers to the general principles of righteousness that underlie God’s law, which remain applicable even when a specific Old Testament ordinance no longer directly applies. As discussed above, the 1689 Confession explicitly says the Mosaic civil laws are expired except for their general equity (A 1689 Baptist Perspective: Confessionalism and Theonomy - 9Marks). But what does this look like in practice?

Historic Interpretation of General Equity: General equity means we discern, from the civil law given to Israel, the moral principle or justice principle that transcends the particular historical form. The Westminster divine Samuel Bolton described general equity as “the common law of nature” found in the judicial laws, which still binds all, as opposed to the specific “municipal laws” of the Jews which do not ( Concerning Theonomy | Effectual Grace ). We have already seen Calvin’s explanation: every law has (1) a “constitution” (specific statute) and (2) an “equity” (moral reason/principle) (The Historical Background of Theonomic Ethics | Sam Waldron - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary). The equity is universal (grounded in nature and the moral law), whereas the specific constitutions can vary between societies (The Historical Background of Theonomic Ethics | Sam Waldron - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) (The Historical Background of Theonomic Ethics | Sam Waldron - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary). General equity does not mean a vague guesswork – Scripture’s case laws often explicitly state reasons or principles that reveal their moral core (e.g. “that you may not bring bloodguilt on your house” in the parapet law, Deut 22:8). Faithful application of general equity involves careful exegesis to understand the principle, and wise translation of that principle to our context.

For example, consider Deuteronomy 22:8 (the roof parapet law). The principle is that homeowners have a duty to prevent foreseeable harm – a life-loving principle flowing from the sixth commandment (“You shall not murder”). The ancient flat roofs functioned as living space, so a railing was a sensible requirement to prevent fatal falls. The general equity is still binding: we must take precautions to preserve life and avoid negligence that could kill (one might say this principle today would entail building codes for safe railings, fencing pools, etc.). But enforcing the literal statute(requiring every roof have a parapet) would be absurd in places or structures where that is irrelevant. General equity reads the Mosaic case law in context and pulls out the abiding moral vision of justice it reflects (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary).

Bahnsen’s Interpretation – “General Equity Theonomy”: Bahnsen and others in the theonomic camp have sometimes claimed they are actually advocating “general equity” – coining terms like “general equity theonomy.” They argue that they too only want to apply the principles of the Mosaic laws, appropriately adapted. However, as noted, Bahnsen defines general equity in a much more rigid way than the confessional tradition. To Bahnsen, the judicial laws of Moses are basically the case-specific applications of the moral law, and since the moral law is unchanging, these case laws in principle remain the standard (A 1689 Baptist Perspective: Confessionalism and Theonomy - 9Marks). He writes: “The moral law of God can… be seen in two subdivisions… (1) general or summary precepts of morality… and (2) commands that specify the general precepts by way of illustrative application.” (A 1689 Baptist Perspective: Confessionalism and Theonomy - 9Marks) In this schema, what the Confession calls “judicial laws” are nothing more than illustrations of the moral law, and thus not a separate category that could expire (A 1689 Baptist Perspective: Confessionalism and Theonomy - 9Marks). As a result, Bahnsen’s application of “general equity” often looks like enforcing the same law with only minor adjustments. For instance, Bahnsen would say the general equity of the parapet law is still to require safety features on buildings – essentially, enforce the same rule (with modern materials) because the principle and the rule are nearly identical. Indeed, Bahnsen’s general equity tends to preserve “the law itself… applied cross-culturally” rather than the broader principle behind the law ( Concerning Theonomy | Effectual Grace ) ( Concerning Theonomy | Effectual Grace ).

General Equity vs. Theonomic Strictness: Dr. Sam Waldron highlights that Bahnsen’s view “stands in contrast to Reformed thought” on general equity ( Concerning Theonomy | Effectual Grace ). Traditional Reformed teaching allows that different societies may have different particular laws and punishments so long as they uphold the same justice. Bahnsen’s approach, by collapsing judicial into moral, implies that justice requires one particular set of penalties and rules (namely, those given to Israel, unless a later text adjusts them). This is why theonomy has been described as “Mosaic Law for all nations” (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary). In effect, Bahnsen’s general equity is so narrow that it becomes a form of the very Mosaic “polity” enforcement Calvin repudiated (The Historical Background of Theonomic Ethics | Sam Waldron - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary). For confessionalists, however, general equity gives freedom to human lawmakers (within the bounds of natural law and love of neighbor) to frame laws fitting their context, without being slavishly bound to ancient Israel’s civil code. It is telling that the Westminster Confession placed the civil laws in the context of a past covenant that has ended – thus rejecting the binding authority of the Israelite civil code – and only after doing so did it mention “general equity” as the remaining relevance (The Historical Background of Theonomic Ethics | Sam Waldron - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary). Theonomists flip this on its head, treating the Mosaic civil code as still binding in exhaustive detail except where particular equity (ancient cultural form) might require minor tweaks ( Concerning Theonomy | Effectual Grace ).

To illustrate, consider punishments. The law of Moses often prescribes specific penalties (e.g., death for certain sexual sins, restitution amounts for theft). The general equity approach asks: what principles of justice (retribution, restitution, deterrence, rehabilitation, protection of the vulnerable, etc.) are reflected in these penalties? How can modern penalties uphold those principles in our context? This might lead to similar penalties in some cases (e.g., many agree with the death penalty for premeditated murder, as Gen. 9:6 and the Mosaic law prescribe). But in other cases, a society might choose a different penalty that it deems just and effective (e.g., imprisonment for certain crimes instead of corporal punishment), and this can still be consistent with biblical justice. Bahnsen’s approach, however, presumes the Mosaic penalty is the standard of justice. For instance, if God commanded death for adultery in Israel (Lev. 20:10), theonomists argue that remains the just penalty, since only explicit NT repeal could negate it. A general equity approach would note that while adultery is indeed a grievous sin with societal implications, the new covenant does not establish a theocratic society to enforce death for it, and even in the Old Testament the civil punishment of adultery was connected to Israel’s calling as a holy nation. The equity (the serious nature of marital faithfulness) remains, but we are not bound to replicate the exact punishment.

In summary, general equity in the historic Reformed sense gives us guidance, not a code. It points us to the timeless moral principles in Israel’s civil law, to inform the laws and ethics of church and society today. It does not treat the Mosaic case laws as universally binding legislation that we must keep unless explicitly canceled. Bahnsen’s theonomy effectively nullifies the concept of an expired judicial law by asserting that all just principles and even penology have already been exhaustively revealed in Moses’ law. As we have seen, this is a significant departure from the 1689 Confession and from theologians like Calvin. The result is that Bahnsen’s system imposes a continuity that Scripture itself does not demand, failing to reckon adequately with the redemptive-historical uniqueness of the Old Covenant.

Law and Gospel in Biblical-Theological Perspective

A thematic critique of theonomy must address how it understands the relationship between law and gospel, and between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant in the grand narrative of Scripture. Bahnsen’s Theonomy in Christian Ethics was written within a firmly Reformed framework (he strongly affirms salvation by grace alone through Christ alone). However, critics have pointed out that an overemphasis on the Old Testament law in the civil sphere can blur important distinctions between the law as an administration of the Old Covenant and the grace of the gospel in the New. A confessional general equity view insists on reading the law in context of the whole Bible’s story, especially the coming of Christ.

The Law as Covenant vs. the Law as Moral Standard: Reformed theology has long distinguished between the law as a covenant of works (demanding perfect obedience for life) and the law as a rule of righteousness for those in covenant of grace. The Old Covenant at Sinai had a heavy legal character – often described as a “ministry of death, carved in letters on stone” (2 Cor. 3:7) compared to the liberating ministry of the Spirit in Christ (2 Cor. 3:8, 17). It was, as Peter says at the Jerusalem Council, “a yoke on the neck… that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear” (Acts 15:10) (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary). Why was it so burdensome? Not because God’s law is unjust, but because the people were unregenerate in large measure, and the law carried curses and severe penalties to expose sin. Paul explains, “the law was our guardian until Christ came… but now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian” (Gal. 3:24–25) (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary). The law functioned pedagogically to multiply transgressions (Gal. 3:19) – both by defining sin precisely and by, in Israel’s case, imposing strict sanctions to restrain sin. Dr. Hicks notes, “The people [of Israel] needed a severe legal system to chasten them and to preserve them as a nation until Christ would come from them.” (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) The “severity of Old Covenant judicial law” is seen in the frequent use of the death penalty for religious and moral offenses – idolatry, blasphemy, Sabbath-breaking, sexual sins, rebellious behavior, etc. (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary). These laws kept Israel separate from the pagans and highlighted the deadly seriousness of sin. Yet they also were a shadow: Israel’s theocratic judgments foreshadowed God’s ultimate judgment. In the gospel, however, Christ has borne the curse of the law for His people (Gal. 3:13). The church is not maintained by a penal code threatening death for sin, but by the power of the Holy Spirit and the loving discipline of the community.

Bahnsen’s theonomy sometimes appears to treat the Mosaic laws as if they were neutral standards that can simply be continued, without fully reckoning with how Christ’s coming changes the administration of God’s kingdom. A biblical theology of law and gospel reminds us that Moses and Christ are qualitatively different mediators (John 1:17: “the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ”). Theonomy tends to read the New Testament as if it were just an appendix to Moses, whereas the New Testament presents itself as the climactic revelation that reinterprets and fulfills Moses. Jesus did not come to perpetuate the Mosaic covenant order, but to fulfill and supersede it. Thus Hebrews stresses that with a change of priesthood comes a change of law (Heb. 7:12) (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary), and that the Old Covenant is taken away to establish the New (Heb. 10:9) (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary).

“Not to Abolish but to Fulfill”: One of Bahnsen’s bedrock texts is Matthew 5:17, where Jesus says, “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.” Bahnsen reads this as Jesus upholding the abiding validity of every jot and tittle of the Old Testament law (A Biblical Refutation of Theonomic Ethics | Sam Waldron - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary). But confessional theologians point out that fulfill in Matthew’s Gospel carries a rich redemptive-historical meaning. Dr. Sam Waldron’s analysis of “fulfill” in Matthew shows that it usually denotes eschatological fulfillment of what the Old Testament anticipated (A Biblical Refutation of Theonomic Ethics | Sam Waldron - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) (A Biblical Refutation of Theonomic Ethics | Sam Waldron - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary). Christ “fulfills” the law not simply by confirming its validity but by bringing it to its intended goal. Waldron observes that Bahnsen’s interpretation of Matthew 5:17–19 largely ignores this fulfillment theme (A Biblical Refutation of Theonomic Ethics | Sam Waldron - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary). Jesus was inaugurating the Kingdom to which the law and prophets pointed. Therefore, “the entire Matthean context of [Matthew 5:17] teaches that the Law and the Prophets are moving toward messianic fulfillment.” (A Biblical Refutation of Theonomic Ethics | Sam Waldron - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) This fulfillment has multiple dimensions: Jesus fulfilled the moral law by His perfect obedience and deepening its true meaning (Matt. 5:21–48), He fulfilled the ceremonial law by His once-for-all sacrifice (Heb. 9:12), and He even fulfilled the judicial law by embodying God’s justice and bearing the curse of the law. Thus, Christ’s fulfilling of the law includes bringing the old order to its culmination – which necessarily entails some transformation. Bahnsen does acknowledge that the ceremonial laws are “superseded” by Christ (A Biblical Refutation of Theonomic Ethics | Sam Waldron - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary), but he insists nothing else is substantially changed. Yet clearly, if the ceremonial aspect of the law (sacrifices, temple, dietary laws) has reached its end in Christ, the civil aspect tied to Israel’s national worship and purity has likewise undergone a change. Jesus “did not come to abolish” in the sense of nullifying or despising the law; but by fulfilling it, He did bring about a new situation. As Waldron puts it, Bahnsen fails to see the “redemptive-historical movement” in Matthew 5:17 (A Biblical Refutation of Theonomic Ethics | Sam Waldron - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary). The result is that Bahnsen’s hermeneutic can obscure the gospel’s arrival of a new era.

Law and Gospel in the Church Age: Historic Reformed theology maintains a clear distinction between the law as lawand the gospel. The law (moral) continues to have use: it reveals sin (driving us to Christ), and it guides Christian obedience (the so-called “third use” of the law). Bahnsen actually champions the third use of the law for sanctification, which is not at issue – Reformed critics agree that Christians should obey God’s commandments (out of gratitude and in the Spirit’s strength). The deeper issue is when Bahnsen extends the law’s use beyond the church to the state in a way that potentially confuses the covenants. If one envisions the Great Commission as including the mandate to politically enforce Mosaic law, one risks merging the spiritual kingdom of Christ with the civil sphere. Confessional Baptists, in particular, are sensitive to this because our forebears endured persecution under regimes that thought they were enforcing “God’s law” (e.g., state churches enforcing religious uniformity). The New Testament portrays the church’s mission as gospel proclamation, disciple-making, and teaching believers to obey all that Christ has commanded (Matt. 28:20) – which includes the moral law, but as refracted through Christ’s teaching and the apostles’ application. It nowhere tasks the church with the political project of subduing nations under Mosaic legislation. In fact, Paul says, “what have I to do with judging outsiders?… God judges those outside” (1 Cor. 5:12–13). The church “judges” those inside (through church discipline), but we do not judge the world; instead we call the world to repentance and faith. Theonomy’s focus on transforming society by the law can sometimes unintentionally downplay the New Testament pattern of heart transformation via the gospel leading to societal change. Certainly, Christians rightly desire just laws in society, but the new covenant strategy for righteousness is the spread of the gospel that changes hearts, not a top-down imposition of a covenant that has already fulfilled its role and passed away.

In summary, a robust biblical theology keeps law and gospel in their proper places. The law of Moses had a specific role in God’s redemptive story – preparing the way for the gospel by revealing sin and showing the need for a Savior, and also preserving a people and lineage for the Messiah. Now that Christ has come, the law is written on the hearts of believers by the Spirit (Jer. 31:33), and the gospel of grace empowers obedience in a way the old letter could not (Rom. 8:3–4). The civil enforcement of religion that existed under Moses is no model for the church’s approach to the world; rather, the church advances by the “ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18) and the armour of God’s Word, not the sword of Moses’ civil sanctions. Theonomists, as fellow believers, certainly affirm salvation by grace, but their ethical paradigm leans toward an old covenant framework in the civil sphere, which can send a mixed message. It risks giving the impression that Christianity’s goal is to reinstate an era of law, whereas the New Testament heralds the era of the Spirit and freedom in Christ (2 Cor. 3:17) – from which genuine righteousness flows. This perspective is not antinomian (against God’s law) but rather Christotelic (seeing the law as pointing to and fulfilled in Christ). As Dr. David VanDrunen notes, even unbelievers are accountable to God’s moral law, but ordinarily through the witness of natural law and conscience in the civil realm, while the church bears witness to the fuller righteousness of God in Christ (Restraining Sin: The Civil Use of the Law by David VanDrunen) (Restraining Sin: The Civil Use of the Law by David VanDrunen). The law remains a rule of life, but the gospel of Christ is the power of salvation and the distinctive message of the church (Rom. 1:16-17).

The Function of Civil Government in Scripture

What does the Bible teach about the role and limits of civil government, and how does this inform the debate? Theonomists like Bahnsen maintain that civil government, as God’s servant (Romans 13:4), is duty-bound to enforce God’s law (which they equate with the Mosaic judicial laws). A confessional general equity view agrees that government is God’s servant to uphold justice, but it contends that Scripture itself indicates government’s jurisdiction is limited to the common justice rooted in natural law, not the whole corpus of Israel’s law.

Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 – The Civil Magistrate’s Mandate: In Romans 13:1–7, Paul instructs Christians to submit to governing authorities, describing the ruler as “God’s servant for your good… an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer” (Rom 13:4). Notably, Paul wrote this under the pagan Roman Empire. The “wrongdoing” the magistrate punishes is understood in a broad moral sense – crimes like theft, murder, etc., which even Roman law recognized as such. Paul does not specify that the magistrate must enforce Israel’s law; he speaks in general terms of doing good versus doing evil (Should We Seek a Christian Government? Part 1—A Critique of the ...). In fact, he implicitly validates that even a non-Christian government can be legitimately “God’s servant” in maintaining civil order. Likewise, 1 Peter 2:13–14 says governors are sent “to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.” Peter wrote this likely during Nero’s reign, hardly a Torah-observant ruler. Yet Peter acknowledges the God-given role of civil authorities to preserve societal good.

These texts suggest that civil justice is grounded in basic moral norms (what the 9Marks article called “general justice” (A 1689 Baptist Perspective: Confessionalism and Theonomy - 9Marks)), not in Israel’s covenantal code. If Paul and Peter believed that only a Torah-based law code was valid, they would have had to qualify their instructions (e.g., “submit to Rome – except where it fails to enforce Mosaic law”). Instead, they uphold the legitimacy of authorities who often did not legislate by biblical law. This aligns with the concept of natural law – that God’s moral law (especially the second table of the Decalogue: commands about murder, theft, etc.) is written on human hearts and forms the basis for human law, even apart from special revelation (Restraining Sin: The Civil Use of the Law by David VanDrunen) (Restraining Sin: The Civil Use of the Law by David VanDrunen). Paul explicitly appeals to conscience in Romans 13:5 (“one must be in subjection…for the sake of conscience”), showing that the moral law known by conscience is in view (Restraining Sin: The Civil Use of the Law by David VanDrunen).

The Two Kingdoms and the Noahic Covenant: David VanDrunen and other Reformed theologians articulate a Two Kingdoms framework: God rules the common kingdom (civil society) through providence, common grace, and natural law, and rules the redemptive kingdom (the church) through His Word and Spirit. The civil government belongs to the common kingdom, which God established in the covenant with Noah (Genesis 9) after the Flood (Restraining Sin: The Civil Use of the Law by David VanDrunen). In that Noahic covenant – made with all humanity and even the animal creation – God ordained basic principles for human society, including the administration of justice: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image” (Gen. 9:6) (Restraining Sin: The Civil Use of the Law by David VanDrunen). This is the foundation for legitimate civil authority to punish evildoers. Importantly, the Noahic covenant is non-redemptive; it does not call all nations to become theocracies, but it provides a moral framework for preserving order, dignity, and justice in a fallen world while God’s redemptive plan unfolds. Thus, all governing authorities, whether or not they have Scripture, have a mandate under the Noahic covenant to uphold justice (protect life, marriage, property, etc.) in line with general moral truths.

The Mosaic covenant came later and was redemptive-historical, preparing a people for the Messiah. It layered Israel’s civil law on top of the moral law, adding specific penalties and ceremonies for a unique purpose. But nowhere does Scripture suggest that God transferred the covenant made at Sinai to the Gentiles. Instead, after Christ’s coming, the gospel goes to Gentiles without putting them under the Mosaic Law (see Acts 15:19–20, where the Jerusalem Council specifically decided not to impose the bulk of Mosaic law on Gentile converts). If even Gentile Christians were not required to take on Israel’s law (aside from abiding by the basic moral laws that predated Moses, and a few temporary concessions for Jewish-Gentile fellowship (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary)), it stands to reason that Gentile civil governments are not under the Mosaic law either. They remain under the Noahic mandate of justice and the witness of natural law. As one Reformed author put it, “the state has a protectionist role. Romans 13 shows that civil government exists to punish wickedness,” but Scripture does not indicate the state must enforce the entirety of Mosaic legislation (Should We Seek a Christian Government? Part 1—A Critique of the ...). It is tasked with maintaining order and justice – broadly defined – not with making people righteous or enforcing true worship (those are purposes of the church, through the gospel and church discipline).

Sphere Sovereignty – Church and State Distinct: Historic Baptist thought (as well as many in the Reformed tradition) emphasizes the distinction between the church and the state. Under the Old Testament theocracy, church and state were one: Israel’s king was the guardian of the covenant, and idolatry was a crime. In the New Testament, the people of God are a spiritual people, and the discipline for heresy or immorality is excommunication, not execution (1 Cor. 5:13 applies “Purge the evil from among you” to removing someone from the church, not killing them (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary)). Jesus made a striking statement in this regard: “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would have been fighting…” (John 18:36). Christ’s kingdom advances not by the sword, but by the Spirit and Word. The civil kingdom (the worldly political order) remains under God’s providence but is not the instrument of salvation or the means of establishing Christ’s eternal kingdom. As such, we dare not identify any nation’s legal system as the expression of God’s kingdom.

Theonomy often blurs this distinction by sacralizing the state – expecting the civil government to essentially act as an arm of the church in enforcing first table commandments (like banning false worship). But the New Testament model, and indeed the post-apostolic church experience, points elsewhere: the church can thrive under pagan governments, and believers are to respect and pray for those authorities (1 Tim. 2:1-2) while carrying out the mission of the gospel. Nowhere do the apostles call upon the Roman Empire to officially adopt the Mosaic law. Instead, they call the emperor and all people to repent and believe in Christ (Acts 17:30–31). The transformation of society, in the New Testament perspective, comes as the gospel leavens the world (Matt. 13:33) – not by a top-down imposition of biblical law, but by the bottom-up spread of biblical faith leading to cultural change.

Limiting the Sword to the Second Table: A number of Reformed theologians (especially in the Two Kingdoms or natural law camp, like VanDrunen) argue that the civil magistrate’s God-given jurisdiction pertains to matters of the “second table” of the law (commandments 5–10, which deal with love of neighbor: murder, theft, etc.), rather than the “first table” (commands 1–4, which deal with worship of God). The reasoning is that in a plural world after the fall, coercing right worship is not given to common civil government; that was unique to Israel’s holy kingdom. Instead, magistrates ensure civil peace and justice among people (love of neighbor), while God alone is the judge of false worship in this age (apart from Israel’s unique case). This view is bolstered by the New Testament, which gives examples of rulers punishing crimes against neighbor (Romans 13) but never instructs them to punish idolatry or blasphemy. Even the prototype of civil justice in Genesis 9:6 is about murder, a second-table concern. Thus, while all people owe true worship to God (first table), in the new covenant era the enforcement of the first table is through the preaching of the Word and church discipline, not the civil sword.

The 1689 Baptist Confession, notably, differs from the Westminster Confession on the civil magistrate’s role in religion: it omits the clause that gave the magistrate authority to suppress heresies or oversee church affairs. Baptist confessional teaching confines the magistrate to civil duties, protecting the freedom of religion. This aligns with the general equity understanding – the magistrate’s job is to uphold justice (equity) between people, not to compel the conscience or maintain religious orthodoxy by law. Any attempt to enforce the fullness of God’s law (including worship laws) by the state inevitably infringes on the New Testament doctrine of the church and the individual conscience.

In evaluating Bahnsen, then, we find that theonomic ethics tends to overextend the civil government’s biblically defined role. Yes, the magistrate is “God’s servant” – but Scripture indicates he is a servant in the limited sense of keeping societal order, not a priest-king of a holy nation. Bahnsen himself, being Presbyterian, did allow for religious freedom in the sense that he didn’t advocate forced conversions – yet the logical implication of the Mosaic civil law would involve penalizing public idolatry and blasphemy. This is a point of divergence from not only Baptist theology but also much of the Reformed tradition’s development. Even many who esteem Calvin’s Geneva do not think modern states should replicate that model, because we are not in the same situation of a city-state that is coterminous with the church.

Justice, Mercy, and Wisdom: A confessional approach also highlights that governments today should pursue justice tempered with mercy and wisdom, informed by but not identical to the Mosaic case law. For instance, the Mosaic law had very harsh penalties (by our standards) for many things – reflecting the severe approach of the Old Covenant as a “guardian.” A modern nation might choose more lenient penalties for some crimes (for example, imprisonment instead of death for adultery or apostasy, or rehabilitation efforts for thieves rather than only restitution or cutting off a hand as some ancient codes did). Theonomists would say any deviation from the Mosaic penalty is injustice. But is it? One could argue that Jesus modeled a tempered approach in John 8, when the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery. The Law prescribed death, yet Jesus said, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone,” leading to no execution – and He told her to “go and sin no more.” While this passage has textual issues and cannot be the sole basis for doctrine, it does illustrate that the Law’s demands can be met with mercy in the age of grace.

In short, civil government is providentially authorized to maintain public justice and order, but it is not the vehicle of God’s redemptive rule – that is Christ’s prerogative exercised through the gospel and the Holy Spirit. Theonomists rightly desire that God be honored in public life and that laws reflect righteousness. However, the general equity paradigm asserts this can and should happen through natural law-informed statutes and the influence of Christian wisdom, rather than by a direct transfer of Sinai to secular law codes. For example, a society might outlaw perjury, theft, and murder (all reflecting the Decalogue) – not because we’ve adopted Exodus or Deuteronomy as statute, but because natural justice and the common good demand it (and Christians can support such laws as consistent with God’s moral will). At the same time, that society might not enforce the first-table laws; it might allow freedom of religion (even though we know idolatry is wrong), because we recognize that civil coercion is not the means to bring about true worship in the new covenant era. This kind of arrangement is actually very close to what many Reformed thinkers advocated historically (the Puritans, to be fair, did enforce first-table offenses in some cases, but the later development, especially in Baptist thought and in voices like Pieter de la Court or even American Presbyterianism, moved toward religious liberty).

The confessional critique of Bahnsen, then, is not that he wants a godly society (all Christians do), but that he misidentifies the Bible’s appointed way to that end. Theonomic ethics entrusts the fallen, common institution of the state with a task God has not given it (enforcing every one of His laws). This both overburdens the state and inevitably harms the church’s gospel witness (history shows that when the state enforces religion, the church often suffers corruption or persecution of dissenters). A balanced Reformed view calls the state to be just (according to general equity) and the church to be prophetic (holding the state accountable to moral principles and preaching truth), but does not merge their roles. As Dr. VanDrunen notes, “God’s law as revealed in Scripture can also serve [to restrain sin]… But most non-Christians do not read the Bible… Their knowledge of God’s law comes primarily from the natural law… and through its testimony to His will and coming judgment it often serves to restrain wickedness and work external good in society.”(Restraining Sin: The Civil Use of the Law by David VanDrunen) (Restraining Sin: The Civil Use of the Law by David VanDrunen) In other words, God is already governing the civil realm through conscience and common grace, and that is sufficient for its purpose. We don’t need a new Sinai for modern states; we need faithful churches, evangelism, and wise Christian citizens who promote true justice for neighbor.

Bahnsen’s Exegesis of Key Texts Reconsidered

Finally, we turn to some of the key biblical texts often cited by Bahnsen in support of theonomy, to see if his interpretations hold up. We have already touched on a couple (Matthew 5:17–19 and Romans 13:1–7), but will examine them more directly here, along with other significant passages. We will see that, in each case, the confessional general equity understanding provides a more contextually sound interpretation that aligns with the whole of Scripture’s teaching.

Matthew 5:17–19 – “Not an Iota Will Pass from the Law”

Bahnsen leans heavily on Jesus’ statement in the Sermon on the Mount: “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” (Matt. 5:18) and the warning against relaxing “the least of these commandments” (5:19). He argues this guarantees the continuing validity of every Old Testament law (including civil laws) in exhaustive detail (A Biblical Refutation of Theonomic Ethics | Sam Waldron - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary). However, as discussed, the term “fulfill” (pleroo) in 5:17 is crucial. All through Matthew’s Gospel, “fulfill” is used of Jesus fulfilling prophecy or redemptive types (A Biblical Refutation of Theonomic Ethics | Sam Waldron - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) (A Biblical Refutation of Theonomic Ethics | Sam Waldron - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary). The context of Matthew 5:17–48 shows Jesus giving the authoritative interpretation and completion of the Law. He intensifies some commandments (against murder, adultery – showing heart intents) and relativizes others in light of a higher ethic (e.g., the famous “eye for eye” law is not to be taken as license for personal vengeance or hatred of enemies, Matt. 5:38-44). Jesus did not come to abolish the Old Testament – He isn’t discarding God’s revelation. Rather, He came to accomplish all to which it pointed. We must ask: when was “all accomplished”? A strong case can be made that Christ’s life, death, and resurrection accomplished all that the Law and Prophets foretold (cf. Luke 24:44 – “everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled”). Thus, there is a temporal progression implied: until Christ completed His work, not a jot of the Law failed; but after He fulfilled it, the Law could pass into its fulfilled form. This aligns with Hebrews saying the change of priesthood necessitated a change in the law (Heb. 7:12) (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary).

Even during Jesus’ ministry, we see signs that certain laws were on the verge of passing away through fulfillment. In Mark 7:19, Jesus “declared all foods clean” – essentially setting aside the dietary laws by His authority, in anticipation of the cross. The “heaven and earth” language in Matthew 5:18 can be taken as hyperbolic for the certitude of the law’s fulfillment, or (as some scholars suggest) symbolically: the passing of the old covenant order (often associated with the decreation language of prophets) when Christ died and the veil tore. Regardless, Bahnsen’s wooden reading (“heaven and earth are still here, so every OT law must still be binding”) oversimplifies the text. Jesus clearly did indicate some laws were transient (He spoke of the “law and the prophets” prophesying until John, and since then the kingdom is preached – Luke 16:16). Matthew 5:17–19 must be harmonized with the fact that Jesus did bring an end to the sacrificial system and other Old Covenant institutions. The best understanding is that Jesus is upholding the divine authority of the Old Testament and saying that His mission is not to tear down the Old Testament but to bring its true intent to reality. Not the smallest part of it will fail to be fulfilled – but once fulfilled, its role may be complete (just as a prophecy, once fulfilled, is not something we continue to await or obey as a future directive).

Sam Waldron points out that Bahnsen’s interpretation lacks any sense of eschatological fulfillment – to him it is merely “confirming” the law’s integrity (A Biblical Refutation of Theonomic Ethics | Sam Waldron - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary). This flattens Jesus’ teaching. In Matthew 5:21–48, Jesus raises the bar morally (showing the depth of the moral law), but He also implicitly sets aside the civil administration of certain laws. For instance, the Mosaic civil law permitted proportional retaliation (“eye for eye, tooth for tooth”), which in context was a limit on vengeance to be executed by judges. But Jesus tells His disciples not to seek retribution at all, but rather to turn the other cheek (Matt. 5:38-39). He is not negating the principle of justice (courts may still apply justice), but He is signaling that His followers operate by a different principle – mercy and non-retaliation – within the gospel kingdom. This would be a strange thing to say if Jesus intended to mandate Mosaic penology for all civil governments. Likewise, He addresses the issue of divorce: the Mosaic law tolerated divorce with a certificate (Deut. 24:1-4), but Jesus points back to the creational ideal of lifelong marriage and permits divorce only for sexual immorality (Matt. 5:31-32, 19:8-9). He thus modifies legal practice in light of a higher moral standard. These examples illustrate that “not abolish but fulfill” does not mean “leave every Mosaic civil provision unchanged.” It means Jesus brings the law to its fullest expression – which for the civil law meant internalizing its principles (justice, holiness, love) rather than perpetuating the old enforcement mechanisms.

In sum, Matthew 5:17–19, rightly understood, upholds the enduring authority of God’s Word but does not teach the perpetuity of the Mosaic legal code as a code. Bahnsen’s use of it neglects the holistic fulfillment that Christ accomplished. Confessional interpreters affirm that none of God’s law has failed – all has been fulfilled in Christ, and now we look to Him and His apostles for how those laws apply in the New Covenant. And indeed, what we find in the New Testament is not a re-imposition of the Sinai civil laws on Rome or other Gentile nations, but rather guidance for Christian living and church conduct, alongside an acknowledgment of the moral law’s righteous requirements.

Romans 13:1–7 – “The Governing Authorities Are Ministers of God”

Bahnsen also appeals to Romans 13 as evidence that civil magistrates must enforce God’s law. The reasoning: if the ruler is God’s servant to punish evil and reward good, he must use God’s definition of good and evil – found in God’s law, not human wisdom. On one level, this is true: rulers should uphold true justice. But we must ask, what revelation of God’s law are Gentile rulers accountable to? Paul wrote Romans 13 to instruct Christians on their posture toward a non-Christian government; he was not directly instructing the government. The “good” and “evil” in view are those broadly understood in a society influenced by conscience and natural law. Indeed, just a chapter earlier, Paul outlined the essence of the moral law (love your neighbor, do not murder, steal, commit adultery, etc.) as the continuing obligation (Rom. 13:8-10). He even cites some of the Ten Commandments in Romans 13:9 – evidence that the moral core of the law is what matters for society (Natural Law: Why limit it in the civil kingdom? | The Puritan Board). He does not cite any judicial case laws or specific penalties from Moses. Thus, a ruler can be a “minister of God” (literally deacon of God) by upholding justice in general, even if he doesn’t have the Torah. As noted earlier, Paul calls the Roman magistrate God’s servant despite Rome not following biblical law on many points.

Romans 13 also says the ruler “does not bear the sword in vain” (13:4), indicating the legitimacy of force to punish criminals – a principle consistent with Gen. 9:6. The confessional view would say: Yes, the ruler must wield the sword justly, in line with God’s moral law (no tyranny, no punishing the righteous). But Scripture itself shows that even those outside Israel had enough moral knowledge to do this. Paul commends, by implication, Roman justice when it functions rightly (he even uses his rights as a Roman citizen to demand fair trial in Acts 25). This signals that even imperfect legal systems can be true authorities established by God. If Bahnsen were pressed, he might agree with that, but he would say they should conform to Scripture more. In principle we agree – all human laws ought not contradict God’s moral law. But requiring conformity to the whole Mosaic law is neither stated nor implied by Paul.

In practice, Bahnsen’s approach to Romans 13 would mean a government that does not criminalize idolatry or blasphemy is failing to “reward good and punish evil” properly. Yet Paul lived under a government that promoted idolatry (the imperial cult) and punished Christians for not honoring Roman gods, and he still called them legitimate authorities. This strongly suggests Paul saw the role of the state as limited to civil order, not the promotion of true religion. If anything, Romans 13:1-7 reinforces the idea of a common grace order: God is using even unbelieving magistrates to restrain grosser outbursts of sin and violence, so that society can function and the church can lead a peaceful life (cf. 1 Tim. 2:2). It is not a charter for a Christian theocracy, but a call for Christian submission to God’s providential order.

1 Timothy 1:8–10 – “The Law is Good… for the Lawless”

Another text sometimes cited by theonomists is 1 Timothy 1:8–10, where Paul says “the law is good if one uses it lawfully” and that it is laid down “for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners…” followed by a list of sins (murder, sexual immorality, slave-trading, etc.) that correspond to the Ten Commandments. Bahnsen might say this proves the ongoing normativity of the law’s civil use against societal sins. However, the traditional understanding is that Paul is referring to the moral law (likely the Decalogue) as that which convicts the unrighteous. In other words, the law’s “first use” (to restrain and expose sin) is in view – which indeed is for the ungodly. This doesn’t automatically translate into a mandate for civil enforcement; it speaks to the law’s function in teaching and conviction. It’s likely directed against false teachers who misused the law (1 Tim. 1:7), and Paul is countering by affirming the law’s proper use – to show sinners their sinfulness (as those vices listed indicate). So while the passage upholds the goodness of God’s law, it doesn’t say “therefore governments must enforce it all.” It aligns more with the idea that moral law remains a standard to judge right and wrong, which confessional folks wholeheartedly affirm.

New Testament Use of Old Testament Case Laws

One powerful evidence often raised against theonomy is how the New Testament itself reapplies the Old Testament laws. We have already noted a few examples:

• In 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, Paul deals with a case of gross sin in the church (a man living in sexual immorality). In verse 13, he quotes Deuteronomy: “Purge the evil person from among you.” In the Deuteronomy context, this phrase usually signified executing the offender to purge the community’s evil (it appears in laws regarding idolaters, false prophets, etc.). But Paul significantly transposes its application: he instructs the Corinthian church to excommunicate the man – “Remove him from among you” – not to hand him over to the civil authorities for punishment (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary). This shows that even a phrase taken from a judicial law is given a church disciplinary meaning in the New Covenant context. The general equity (maintain the purity of God’s people) remains, but it’s enforced by church censures, not by the sword.

• In 1 Timothy 5:17-18, Paul argues that elders who rule well should receive honor (financial support), citing Scripture: “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain” (a law from Deut. 25:4) and “the laborer deserves his wages” (likely alluding to Jesus’ words or a proverbial saying) (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary). Here, a Mosaic law about not muzzling an ox – which in context was a command to allow working animals to eat as they thresh – is applied by analogy to paying pastors. Paul saw in that judicial law a principle of remunerative justice (a worker, man or beast, should benefit from his labor) (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary). He did not urge Timothy to lobby the Roman governor to enforce ox-muzzling laws on farms! The application was within the church’s ethic. This is a clear instance of general equity usage by an apostle: the literal law was case-specific to agrarian Israel, but its equity (don’t deny the fruits of labor) is timeless and here specifically applied to church support for ministers.

• Another example is James 5:4, which says, “the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you…” This echoes the principle in Deuteronomy 24:14-15 which required paying hired workers promptly. The New Testament authors frequently bring forward the moral principles of the Mosaic laws, but they consistently refrain from saying, “and the magistrate should enforce this exactly as written.” The appeal is usually to the conscience of believers or as a rebuke of social sins, not a political platform.

What these examples show is that the trajectory of the New Testament is to apply the Old Testament law to the Christian life (individually and corporately in the church), rather than to the structures of civil government. There is no New Testament command or example that instructs the church to impose the Mosaic judicial system on society. On the contrary, the early church expected to function under pagan law, sometimes suffering injustice, but overcoming by the word of their testimony and patient endurance (Rev. 12:11, 14:12).

Bahnsen might counter that this is an argument from silence, but it is a telling silence. If God intended the Church to Christianize the state by installing biblical law, wouldn’t we see at least seeds of that in the apostolic writings? Instead, we see a two-age perspective: this present age with its authorities (often unjust), and the age to come breaking in through the church. Christians are indeed to be salt and light in society, advocating for righteousness, but the New Testament focuses on internal transformation leading to an exemplary community, which by its love and holiness influences others (Matt. 5:13-16, 1 Peter 2:12). It does not instruct believers to take up the sword of state power to advance Christ’s kingdom – in fact, it warns against confusing the gospel with worldly power (John 18:36, Luke 22:25-27).

In reviewing Bahnsen’s exegesis of texts like Matthew 5, Romans 13, and others, we find a consistent pattern: Bahnsen often isolates a text from the broader canon’s teaching and loads it with meaning that aligns with his continuity presupposition, whereas a fuller biblical-theological reading provides other nuances. This is not to impugn Bahnsen’s sincerity or scholarship (he was a meticulous debater of these issues), but it is to say that his interpretations were not universally accepted in Reformed scholarship for good reason. Men like Meredith Kline offered strong rebuttals (Kline famously called theonomy a “delusive and grotesque perversion” of the teachings of Scripture in his review “Comments on an Old-New Error” (Protecting Religious Liberty: Why Theonomy is Not the Answer)). While that language is severe, it highlights how far theonomy was seen to diverge from traditional covenant theology. Kline emphasized the unique intrusion of God’s heavenly justice into the Israelite theocracy – a one-time preview of final judgment, not meant to be repeated until Christ returns in glory. Thus the severity of Mosaic law (cherem warfare, etc.) was an irruption of the end-time justice into history, which ended with the end of that theocracy. The gospel era returns us to a common grace mode of providence where God “lets the wheat and tares grow together” (Matt. 13:30) until the harvest.

In conclusion, careful exegesis affirms that all Scripture is profitable (2 Tim. 3:16) – including the law – but it must be interpreted in context. Bahnsen’s key proof-texts, when read in context and alongside the rest of the New Testament, do not mandate what he claims. Rather, they support the confessional position: God’s moral law endures (and should inform civil morality), but the Mosaic covenant code has been fulfilled in Christ and is not the rule for Gentile nations. The general equity of those laws continues to instruct us in righteousness, yet the letter of those old laws is not imposed in the new covenant. Thus, Bahnsen’s scriptural case, while passionately argued, falls short of demonstrating that Theonomy in Christian Ethics is the biblical model. A general equity approach, consistent with the 1689 Confession and wider Reformed tradition, offers a more coherent synthesis of the whole counsel of God.

Conclusion

Greg Bahnsen’s Theonomy in Christian Ethics challenged 20th-century Christians to take God’s law seriously in the public square. In that, Bahnsen rightly objected to antinomian tendencies and a lax attitude toward biblical morality. However, in his zeal, Bahnsen advanced a thesis that the church historically and confessionally has not endorsed: that the judicial laws of Old Testament Israel, in exhaustive detail, are intended to be the law code for all nations. From the perspective of a confessional Reformed Baptist (1689) framework, we find this thesis to be unbiblical and inconsistent with the trajectory of redemptive history and historic Reformed orthodoxy.

Thematically, we have seen: (1) The Mosaic civil law was given to a particular covenanted nation and expired with that covenant, its general equity alone remaining as a guide for justice (The Historical Background of Theonomic Ethics | Sam Waldron - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) (A 1689 Baptist Perspective: Confessionalism and Theonomy - 9Marks). (2) The continuity between Old and New Covenants lies chiefly in the unchanging moral law of God, whereas the discontinuity lies in the passing of the Old Covenant forms and the inauguration of a new, better covenant in Christ (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary). Bahnsen’s near-total continuity overlooks the fulfillment and transformation wrought by Christ (A Biblical Refutation of Theonomic Ethics | Sam Waldron - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) (A Biblical Refutation of Theonomic Ethics | Sam Waldron - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary). (3) General equity, rightly understood, means extracting timeless moral principles from Israel’s law, not simply re-enacting Israel’s law with minor adaptations ( Concerning Theonomy | Effectual Grace ) ( Concerning Theonomy | Effectual Grace ). Bahnsen’s redefinition of general equity was shown to be in tension with the Westminster divines’ intent and Calvin’s teaching (Concerning Theonomy | Effectual Grace ) (The Historical Background of Theonomic Ethics | Sam Waldron - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary). (4) A proper law-gospel biblical theology recognizes the law’s role in amplifying sin and the gospel’s role in bringing in an era of grace (John 1:17, Gal. 3:19, 24) (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary). Theonomy blurs that by effectively seeking to re-establish the Sinai administration under Christ, contrary to apostolic practice (Acts 15:10-11) (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary). (5) The civil government, according to Scripture, is ordained to uphold justice and order (Rom. 13:3-4, 1 Pet. 2:14) and is answerable to God’s moral law, but not charged with enforcing Israel’s covenant law or advancing the redemptive kingdom (Restraining Sin: The Civil Use of the Law by David VanDrunen) (Restraining Sin: The Civil Use of the Law by David VanDrunen). Theonomic proposals risk overstepping the bounds of the state’s divine mandate and undermining liberty of conscience. (6) Bahnsen’s exegesis of key texts was found wanting: Matthew 5 actually teaches the fulfillment (and thereby transformation) of the law in Christ (A Biblical Refutation of Theonomic Ethics | Sam Waldron - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) (A Biblical Refutation of Theonomic Ethics | Sam Waldron - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary); Romans 13 affirms natural law duties of rulers, not a demand for a Mosaic code (Restraining Sin: The Civil Use of the Law by David VanDrunen) (Restraining Sin: The Civil Use of the Law by David VanDrunen); and the New Testament consistently re-applies OT laws in principial ways for the church, not as a civil legislation for the world (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary).

From respected Reformed theologians, we garnered support for this critique. Sam Waldron demonstrates how Bahnsen’s thesis ignores context and redemptive progression in texts like Matthew 5 (A Biblical Refutation of Theonomic Ethics | Sam Waldron - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) (A Biblical Refutation of Theonomic Ethics | Sam Waldron - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary). David VanDrunen highlights the role of natural law and the Noahic covenant in grounding civil justice apart from the Mosaic covenant (Restraining Sin: The Civil Use of the Law by David VanDrunen) (Restraining Sin: The Civil Use of the Law by David VanDrunen). Richard Barcellos reminds us that the entire Old Covenant law, even the Decalogue as given at Sinai, was laid aside as a covenant code, even though its moral content carries into the New Covenant ethics (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary). Vern Poythress points out the typological and ceremonial elements interwoven with Israel’s civil law (e.g. laws about purging idolatry that presuppose a holy land and sacrificial system) which make a simple carry-over illegitimate (The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses (Poythress) | The Puritan Board) (The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses (Poythress) | The Puritan Board). These voices, rooted in the 1689 and Westminster frameworks, show that Bahnsen’s theonomy diverges from historic Reformed covenant theology at a fundamental level – particularly on the nature of the Mosaic covenant and the unfolding of God’s kingdom.

In the final analysis, while theonomists call us to honor God’s law (a noble aim), their program falls short of the biblical pattern. The Great Commission sends us to disciple the nations by teaching Christ’s commandments – which include the moral law in its New Covenant fullness – but it does not call us to reconstruct the geopolitical laws of ancient Israel. Rather than imposing an old wineskin on the world, the church is to hold forth the new wine of the gospel, which will work from within to produce righteousness. Civil laws today should indeed reflect general equity and basic justice, and Christians can labor for righteous legislation – but this is done through the wisdom of natural law and prudent application of moral principles, not by assuming that every statute of Moses is ready-made for modern society.

Theonomy, as critiqued here, represents a well-intentioned but misguided effort that overlooks the glory of the New Covenant and the wisdom of God in appropriating His law to different eras of redemptive history. As the 1689 Confession succinctly states, the civil laws “expired” with Israel and oblige us only as far as general equity requires (A 1689 Baptist Perspective: Confessionalism and Theonomy - 9Marks). This general equity view is not a retreat from God’s law, but a robust and nuanced approach to upholding God’s righteousness in every area of life – in a way that honors the whole counsel of Scripture.

In conclusion, Bahnsen’s Theonomy is found to deviate from both Scripture and the historic Reformed confession at several key points. A confessional general equity perspective offers a more biblically and theologically sound framework: one that upholds the moral law of God, appreciates the fulfilled and transient nature of the Old Covenant, distinguishes the roles of church and state, and ultimately exalts Christ as the fulfiller of the law who brings a better covenant established on better promises (Heb. 8:6). This perspective refutes theonomy not by denigrating God’s law, but by rightly dividing the Word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15) – showing that the law, gospel, and kingdom of God each have their proper place in God’s wise and redemptive plan.

References

1. Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics, 3rd ed. (Nacogdoches, TX: Covenant Media Press, 2002). esp. Preface (xlii) and Appendix on the Westminster Confession’s view (A 1689 Baptist Perspective: Confessionalism and Theonomy - 9Marks) ( Concerning Theonomy | Effectual Grace ).

2. Greg L. Bahnsen, By This Standard: The Authority of God’s Law Today (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1985). See pp. 2–5, 97–98 for Bahnsen’s summary of the theonomic thesis and his twofold division of law (A 1689 Baptist Perspective: Confessionalism and Theonomy - 9Marks) (A 1689 Baptist Perspective: Confessionalism and Theonomy - 9Marks) (A 1689 Baptist Perspective: Confessionalism and Theonomy - 9Marks).

3. The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1677/1689), Chapter 19 (“Of the Law of God”), paragraphs 4–5 (A 1689 Baptist Perspective: Confessionalism and Theonomy - 9Marks) (A 1689 Baptist Perspective: Confessionalism and Theonomy - 9Marks). (Cf. Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) 19.4–5 which contains the same wording on the judicial law and the perpetuity of the moral law.)

4. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536/1559), Book 4, Chapter 20, sections 14–16. Calvin discusses the difference between the moral law’s equity and the particular laws of Moses’ polity (The Historical Background of Theonomic Ethics | Sam Waldron - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) (The Historical Background of Theonomic Ethics | Sam Waldron - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) (The Historical Background of Theonomic Ethics | Sam Waldron - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary).

5. Samuel Waldron, “A Biblical Refutation of Theonomic Ethics” (serialized article, Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) – available online (A Biblical Refutation of Theonomic Ethics | Sam Waldron - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) (A Biblical Refutation of Theonomic Ethics | Sam Waldron - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary). Waldron exegetes Matthew 5:17–20 and critiques Bahnsen’s interpretation, emphasizing the redemptive-historical meaning of “fulfill.”

6. Samuel Waldron, “The Historical Background of Theonomic Ethics” (CBTS article) (The Historical Background of Theonomic Ethics | Sam Waldron - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) ( Concerning Theonomy | Effectual Grace ). Waldron contrasts the theonomic view with the Westminster Confession and Calvin, explaining the original intent of “general equity.”

7. Tom Hicks, “Why is Theonomy Unbiblical?” (April 12, 2021, CBTSeminary.org) (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary). Hicks provides a Reformed Baptist analysis of theonomy, covering its hermeneutical errors and issues of covenant discontinuity. Points #2, #3, #5, #6, #7, #8 in the article correspond to arguments about Gentile nations, the abolition of the Old Covenant, the land of Canaan, the purpose of OT penalties, the severity of Mosaic law as a guardian, and NT application of OT laws (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary) (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary).

8. Justin Perdue, “A 1689 Baptist Perspective: Confessionalism and Theonomy” (9Marks, April 28, 2023) (A 1689 Baptist Perspective: Confessionalism and Theonomy - 9Marks) (A 1689 Baptist Perspective: Confessionalism and Theonomy - 9Marks). Perdue explains the theonomy debate from a confessional Baptist standpoint, noting Bahnsen’s view on collapsing the judicial law into the moral and the confessional understanding of general equity and natural law (A 1689 Baptist Perspective: Confessionalism and Theonomy - 9Marks) (A 1689 Baptist Perspective: Confessionalism and Theonomy - 9Marks).

9. Meredith G. Kline, “Comments on an Old-New Error,” Westminster Theological Journal 41 (1978): 172–189 (Protecting Religious Liberty: Why Theonomy is Not the Answer). Kline’s review of Bahnsen’s Theonomyarticulates a covenant-theological critique, including the concept of intrusion ethics (the unique, temporary intrusion of divine judgment in the Mosaic theocracy).

10. Vern S. Poythress, The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1995). Poythress rejects theonomy while examining the unity of the law’s moral principles and the uniqueness of Israel’s situation. See especially his discussion of Israel’s holy land and cherem warfare in Deut. 13 (The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses (Poythress) | The Puritan Board) (The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses (Poythress) | The Puritan Board) and of the penology of the law (pp. 131–134) (The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses (Poythress) | The Puritan Board) (The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses (Poythress) | The Puritan Board).

11. Richard C. Barcellos, In Defense of the Decalogue (Enumclaw, WA: WinePress, 2001), p. 68 (Why is Theonomy Unbiblical? - Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary). Barcellos discusses the relationship of the Decalogue to the Old and New Covenants, noting the abrogation of the former covenant and the reimplementation of moral laws in the New Covenant documents.

12. David VanDrunen, “Restraining Sin: The Civil Use of the Law,” Ligonier Ministries (Tabletalk article) (Restraining Sin: The Civil Use of the Law by David VanDrunen) (Restraining Sin: The Civil Use of the Law by David VanDrunen). VanDrunen explains the Reformers’ doctrine of the civil use of the law, grounding it in natural law and the Noahic covenant, with biblical examples (Gen. 9, etc.) of how God maintains civil justice apart from the Mosaic law.

13. David VanDrunen, Politics after Christendom: Political Theology in a Fractured World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2020). (Not directly quoted above, but offers a contemporary Reformed two-kingdom perspective counter to theonomy, consistent with the principles cited.)

14. Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, ed. William S. Barker and W. Robert Godfrey (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990). (Multi-author work critiquing theonomy; includes chapters by Meredith Kline, Sinclair Ferguson, and others. Provides historical and biblical analysis aligning with the non-theonomic Reformed position outlined in this article.)

(All Scripture quotations are from the ESV. Citations in the format 【†】 refer to the sources above or specific locations in linked online resources for verification of quoted material.)