An examination of the actual content and phrasing of the Mosaic law, in its several revelations, makes the matter more problematic. The requirements for capital punishment are phrased in Deuteronomy, for instance, in sacrificial/purification language: "Thus you shall purge (burn out) the evil from among you." [Deuteronomy 13:5; 17:7,12; 19:13,19; 21:21; 22:21,22,24; 24:7.] This is the case regarding not only religious crimes, but social ones as well. Does this mean that all capital punishments are to be regarded as part of the "sacrificial and purity principles?" I believe so, at least regarding Israel as God's holy nation.

 

It was my own in-depth studies in the content of the Mosaic law that finally convinced me that the theonomic paradigm simply does not fit the facts. It has become evident to me that the theonomic approach, as a hermeneutical theory, must die the death of a thousand qualifications.

 

For instance, the law forbids "cutting the edges" of one's beard (Lev. 19:27). Assuming we have translated the obscure Hebrew text properly, and that it means the Israelite man was not to wear a goatee (questionable), then are we still supposed to obey this law?  The theonomic formula says it is still in effect unless expressly rescinded, or unless it is sacrificial, purity oriented, or a "separation" principle. It is obviously not sacrificial or connected to purity. Is it a mark of Israel's priesthood, a separation principle? It would not seem so.  In context it comes right after a law forbidding witchcraft, which we would see as "permanent." So, we either have to keep this law, or else add yet another qualifier, perhaps "laws mandating an institutional symbol of life and power." But, all the laws have this aspect as well. So, we have to say "laws that merely mandate an institutional symbol of life and power." This illustrates what I mean by saying the formula dies the death of a thousand qualifications. A better formula is needed.

 

Along these lines, we can say with little fear of contradiction that the Church has always maintained a theocratic approach to society -- that Christ is King and that Christian laws must replace pagan ones. It is only in recent years and under "American" influence that this has ever been contested.  Second, we can say that the Church has always made ample use of the Old Covenant revelation in guiding both the institutional Church and society at large. At the same time, third, we can say that no one in the history of the Church has ever advocated the terms of Bahnsen's theonomic formula as a way of integrating the Old Covenant revelation with the New Covenant situation.