Lee: 2. The [Theonomic] argument from Matt. 5:17-19 Jesus says that he came not to destroy but to confirm the law - down to the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet and least stroke of a scribe's pen. Our Lord also declared that anyone who taught that the least commandment has been abrogated will be called least in the kingdom. Dare we assert that any of the Old Testament laws, including the civil laws, have become obsolete unless we have an express declaration from God himself? First, we have an exegetical objection to this argument.

The Greek word pleroo (v. 17) almost never means "to confirm" but "to fulfill." .....

Us: We agree that the Matthaean passage in question favors rendering pleroo eschatologically, given Matthew's major themes. But we hardly need this passage to make the case for Theonomy since case-law applications by Jesus and the apostles suffuse the NT.

Lee: Second, even if the theonomic interpretation of Matt. 5:17-19 were proven correct, it does not prove the specific thesis that the Old Testament civil law should be enforced by civil government today.

Us: Yes, but Deut. 4:5-8 clearly does. And so does the impossibility of the contrary. God's deacon must punish evil (Rom. 13), and evil only has one standard, the law of the Lord. Prov. 20:10 and 1 John 3:1 confirm this. Ergo, the civil authorities must enforce God's law -- including the scriptural case-law applications. Here is the Deuteronomic text:

Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for? And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?

If the Bible intended to teach that the law-wisdom of Israel was to be a model for the nations, how could it say it more clearly than this? Even the Queen of Sheba figured that one out. Remember, Solomon prefigures both Jesus and the Church in glory (resurrected saints), and all the nations (not just Candace) went up to hear Solomons wisdom. 1 Kings 4:29-34 reads: And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart, even as the sand that is on the sea shore. And Solomon's wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt. For he was wiser than all men; than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, and Chalcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol: and his fame was in all nations round about. ... [Punchline?] And there came of all people to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings of the earth, which had heard of his wisdom.

Lee: Theonomy rests on the assumption that the civil law was given to Israel to be a model for all other civil governments.

Us: Now you're catching on. Righteousness exalts a nation [any nation], but sin disgraces any people (Prov. 14:34). And "Blessed is that nation whose God is the Lord."

Lee: But is this so? ... Israel was told that if the demands of the covenant were met, Israel would be God's "own possession among all the peoples, a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (Exod. 19:5-6). But if Israel was set apart from the nations of the earth by a special covenant relationship that made her "a peculiar people," then Israel's theocratic political organization did not function as a model for the nations to imitate but as a typological foreshadowing of the coming kingdom of Christ: "You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession" (1 Pet. 2:9), and "He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father" (Rev. 1:6).

Us: Lee has here reached from one biblical fact -- Israel's peculiar covenant status -- precisely the opposite conclusion taught in Scripture itself. It simply does not follow from "peculiar people" to "not a model for the nations."

First, Israel WAS in fact a model for the nations when ruled wisely under Solomon.

Second, if God were to single out a nation to the lead the nations into righteousness as a model to be imitated, would that not make it "peculiar" and holy by definition? So then, that single fact peculiarity -- is consistent with (even required by) the Theonomic view.

And Deut. 4 makes it clear that it WAS set apart as a peculiar people just because it was (and still is, though the term "Israel" in Scripture often applies only to the Church) intended as an ethical model. Those who fulfill the covenant in Christ are thus priests AND KINGS. And in the resurrection, they shall rule the nations with a rod of iron (i.e. Gods law). This is the sum the book of Revelation.

Lee: Third, we do not need an explicit declaration from God telling us whether each Old Testament law is still in effect or not in the New Covenant.

Us: Correct. But in the absence of an annulment of any command (or prohibition) -- EITHER explicit or implicit -- the text in question necessarily continues to bind all men to the relevant duty. Denying this implies that God must give a command TWICE before it becomes our duty, which is nonsense. This nonsense goes by the name dispensationalism, which, judging by the works of authors holding this view, represents an apparent conflation of the words dispensing and sensationalism. For more on this, see Carsons article, The Late Great Rapture Myth: 5 Biblical Reasons You Will Never Be Raptured.

Lee: Do we have a clear statement anywhere in the NT to the effect that we are no longer commanded to offer incense in worship?

Us: "To the effect that?" Sure we do. Hebrews 6 makes it clear that the entire Temple complex with all its attending priestly rites, ceremonies and sacrifices have been "changed," meaning replaced by a new priesthood -- that after the order of Melchi-zedek (a gentile name for Christ) -- and not after Aaron or Levi. This implies Bye-bye incense. For our Lord descended from Judah, and about Judah Moses said nothing regarding priests. And the prophesied (and fulfilled) destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70 (see Matthew 24) is also a helpful hint. Revelation makes it clear that the Temple incense was a shadowy type of the prayers of the saints offered to God purified by the High-priestly ministry of Christ.

Lee: Are we still forbidden to wear garments containing mixed fabrics (Lev. 19:19)?

Us: No. "Mixed" animal characteristics (cloven hoof, etc) made certain animals "unclean." Likewise "mixed fabrics" with clothing. The laws regarding animals in the OT were, likewise, there to teach us about men. That's why Paul applies the labor law in Deut. 25:4 about oxen to ministers (men). Thus, the hybrid prohibitions of the OT were didactic, just like the clean/ unclean dietary laws.

Each was designed to teach an ethical point like "Do not be yoked [notice the animal reference "yoked"] together with unbelievers." So once the gospel went explicitly "international" under the New Covenant, gentile "pigs" and "dogs" were now made clean in principle. Thus, the dietary and hybrid laws no longer bind God's people. Simon Peter learned this in a vision (Acts 10), where "unclean meats" stood for "Gentiles." To him who is clean are all things clean.

Lee: Are all Christian couples in sin today if they enjoy sexual relations during the wife's menstrual period (Lev. 18:19)?

Us: No, but how do you say "YUCH" in Hebrew? This is also a clean/ unclean law like those mentioned above. No woman who is in Christ can be rendered "ceremonially unclean" by anything, since she has been made clean by the blood of Christ. But you might want to check first with a doctor about the hygenic aspects of this practice.

Lee: If your brother dies are you still required to raise up seed for him by taking his wife?

Us: No. The point of this law was to keep a woman's inheritance within her particular tribe in Israel. That means it was tied PARTICULARLY to the land of Israel and its 12 tribes. This law never applied outside Israel even under the Older Covenant. The destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70, along with its genealogical records makes this law defunct in two ways: the internationalizing of the New Covenant (where the 12 apostles replaced the 12 tribes), and the present impossibility of any Jewish person determining which tribe she came from.

Lee: Since God has never revoked or modified the boundaries of the land promised to Israel, should we encourage Israel to take back the West Bank by military force?

Us: No. God has changed the referent to the word "Israel." God will fulfill his written promises ONLY to those who keep covenant in Christ. Gal. 3:12-13 says that those who have faith in Jesus are the seed of Abraham [Israel]. Howsoever many be the promises of God, they are in Him [Christ] both "Yes" and "Amen" (2 Cor. 1:20). The Church is the True Israel (which is why it has 12 apostles and not 123) and the New Jerusalem (Hebrews 12), the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim. 2:15), i.e. Temple. In other writings, Lee shows that he already knows this.

Lee: Not even [Theonomists] would answer yes to these questions. There are no explicit proof-texts in Scripture stating that these specific case laws have changed.

Us: One more time. Lees notion that the Theonomic position denies the use of the logical force of combined scriptures to make a point from general principles of the Word as well as from specific case-laws simply has no basis. Anyone who has read works by Theonomists like Greg Bahnsen and Gary North knows this. I even do the same in this very article to argue against Lee.

Lee: Yet we know they are no longer binding because the entire Mosaic system has been fulfilled in Christ in such a way that it need not be literally observed by Christians today. Such an argument is based on a general consideration of the overall progression of redemptive history: now that the shadows of the Old Covenant have been fulfilled and replaced by the arrival of the Word made flesh, they are no longer definitive of the church's practice (John 1:14-18; 2:19-22; 4:20-26; Acts 15:13-21; Gal. 3:19; 4:1-11; Col. 2:16-23; Heb. 7:12; 8:13; 9:8- 10; 10:1).

Us: We know the above texts no longer bind because the NT tells us so -- specifically. Our arguments to that effect are based on specific texts and what they necessarily (and sometimes "obviously") imply. None of this tells in the least against the Theonomic position. And when is Lee going to provide an equally detailed and comprehensive alternative law-code to that found in the OT? He keeps overlooking the first principle of public debate: You cannot beat something with nothing.

-- To Be Continued --