Good morning. Good to see everyone here once again this morning. I just want to get right into it. Last time we were looking at theonomy, and so this is part two on theonomy. The main emphasis last night was to define theonomy and then to give a primary response to it, which is the threefold division of the law. So if you weren't here last night, a very, very brief review is that I argued that both historic theonomy and the modern version teach that the judicial law of the Old Covenant is a blueprint for all nations, even today. So it was not unique to the nation of Israel. But that the essence of the judicial laws for all nations the primary response to that is it is a denial of the historic and biblical Threefold division of the law and so I tried to lay out from the Bible That the law the moral law of God is permanent and abiding and cuts across all covenants so that's the ten come summarized in the Ten Commandments rooted in the character of God and And that the judicial law and the ceremonial law of the Old Covenant are both fulfilled and abrogated with the coming of the Lord Jesus. And then began to show various applications of that and how we should think of various laws in the Old Testament like polygamy. Polygamy was not Forbidden and the old covenant judicial regulation, but was permitted because the point of the old covenant law was to Regulate a society the Israelite society For that time for that people to a particular end and it's not for all Nations and so if you if you hold and I would challenge if you hold that the judicial law of Israel is the blueprint for all nations at all times and we should legalize polygamy and Right? That would seem to be a conclusion. And yet, that is not what we should do because that's not what the Old Testament judicial law is. So let's consider another aspect of Old Covenant judicial law. which is we're going to do two things today. One, look at the death penalties of old covenant judicial law. And then the second thing we'll do is look at what our confession teaches about the general equity of judicial law that is still of moral use and what exactly that means historically and in terms of our theology as well. So let's begin with this question of the death penalties of Old Covenant judicial law. I'm going to argue that they were typological. They were typological. But before we get into the judicial law's death penalty, there is a death penalty prescribed in the Old Testament that isn't judicial law, and it's pre-Mosaic. So the death penalty that was prescribed before Moses is the death penalty for murder. And that's found in the Noahic Covenant, which I would argue is natural. That if you take a man's life, the only just retribution for that, the only way you can pay for your crime of murder is to forfeit your own life. And that's what Genesis 9, 6 teaches. It says, whoever sheds the blood of man By man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image. And so it's rooted in the image of God in man, showing that governments that implement this must recognize the one true God in order to ground death penalty for murder. So that's for later. It's a preview. While I'm going to later oppose a certain version of Christian nationalism, certainly, all governments are under God. Under the one true God, the triune God. And that's the only basis on which we could say that you should put to death a murderer of an image of God. This is also the principle of lex talionis right so if you take a man's life and murder then Just weight and measure would mean an eye for an eye a tooth for tooth your life must also be taken But now let's consider The other death penalties that are in judicial law of the Old Covenant, the Israelite covenant, they're tied usually, I'm gonna argue, to Old Covenant worship. It's really what they're about. Though they're judicial law, they're really tightly connected to worship. The Old Testament term devoted to destruction, or the Hebrew is harem, Devoted to the ban involves the death penalty and it's collect connected to the purity of the land Holy war and old covenant worship So I want to show you where some of these this death penalties are applied if you look at look with me at one example in Deuteronomy 13 if you will And just imagine first of all as we read this this being applied directly or even the general equity of it to the United States of America. Deuteronomy 13 verse 12. It says. If you hear in one of your cities, which the Lord your God is giving you to dwell there, that certain worthless fellows have gone out among you and have drawn away the inhabitants of their city, saying, let us go and serve other gods. So which of our cities have done that? Like every one of them, right? Which you have not known. Then you shall inquire and make search and ask diligently. And behold, if it be true and certain that such an abomination has been done among you, you shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, devoting it to destruction. That's the Hebrew harem. It is the death penalty. all who are in it and its cattle with the edge of the sword. You shall gather all its spoil into the midst of its open square and burn the city and all its spoil with fire as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. It shall be a heap forever. It shall not be built again. So frequently this word harem is applied to death It's the death penalty all through the Old Testament, and it's I'm arguing though It is a piece of judicial law it is tightly connected to worship of the Old Covenant and so what it's saying is if a city comes under the influence of idolaters and You're to be careful inquiry. We need two or three witnesses of it so that we're not doing this unjustly, but then you put the whole thing to death. The whole city, not just the idolaters. They all die, everyone, and they're burned as a whole burnt offering to the Lord. Now, I would argue that this is an anticipation of Judgment Day and that the New Testament actually teaches that. So when the Old Testament has this lavish application of the death penalty, it is a foreshadowing because the Old Covenant is a typological covenant. It's doing more than regulating a nation. It is doing that, but it is typological of greater eternal realities. It reiterates the original curse of the covenant of works, and it also reiterates the promise of the covenant of grace in it, but typologically, pointing to things beyond it. So if you want to look with me, you can at Hebrews 10.28. which I think teaches this typological principle about the death penalty in the old covenant. Hebrews 10, 28. It says anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. There it is. And what's that death penalty for in the Old Testament? Well, all kinds of sins, right? Sabbath breaking, adultery. Many others are also there. Of course, idolatry for sure. So it dies on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified and outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, vengeance is mine, I will repay. So what's the worst punishment than the death penalty? It's hell for rejecting Christ and his authority. So the death penalties of the Old Testament are associated with Israel's unique place in redemptive history. And so if you want to see this argument worked out further, I'll refer you to Verne Poitras' book, The Shadow of Christ and the Law of Moses. It's not a perfect book. I wouldn't agree of everything in it. But actually, if theonomists had bought into his argument, we wouldn't be having as big of a debate as we are now. He said it, I think, on a much surer, clearer course. But due to their special character, I would argue that it would be unjust to apply Old Covenant death penalties in a Gentile nation. It was perfectly just for Israel to put people to death for all sorts of reasons because God has the right to command death of any sinner. And he commanded the death of many sinners via the Old Covenant for reasons that were unique to that covenant. But we have no right to implement such penalties in Gentile nations. We're not commanded to do so, and God has not authorized it. Further, the death penalties of the Old Covenant are reflective of the fact that it was a work for the right to inheritance of the covenant. Now this is an important point. We find this principle in Leviticus 18 5 so if if if you sin against the moral law of God in the Old Testament It's it's death or some other very serious civil sanction against you but if you keep the law of the Old Covenant outwardly as a nation you inherit the land and you have abundant life in the land so just as The Old Covenant death penalty was a type of hell. The Old Covenant life blessing in the land is a type of heaven. Leviticus 18.5 says, you shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules. Meaning in a civil sense. The command here is, while they are to obey from the heart, that is certainly required. That's required pre-Mosaic, to obey the Lord your God from the heart. But the Mosaic covenant, as that which is given to the nation of Israel, is only rewarding and punishing outward obedience. So if you keep my statutes and my rules, you shall do so. You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules. If a person does them, he shall live by them. If a person does them, he shall live by them. I am the Lord." I would argue one of the most dangerous aspects of theonomy is found throughout their older theonomic writings. And it's an essential, not an explicit all the time, but it is nonetheless highly implicit. I'm going to read you some quotes that show it, of a mono-covenantalism. It just flattens out the biblical covenants. The covenant of works is just like the old covenant. It's just like the new covenant. and its essence. And what it says is that there's a work for inheritance principle that cuts across all the covenants. So Greg Bonson wrote this. The perpetuity of God's commandments, says Bonson, follow from the eternality of his covenant, singular, of which they comprise an inalienable part. The law, both prior to and after the fall, is gracious. What does he mean by that? Well, continued blessing for Adam in paradise, for Israel in the promised land, and the Christian in the kingdom has been seen to be dependent upon persevering obedience to God's will as expressed in his law. There is complete covenantal unity with reference to the law of God as the standard of moral obligation throughout the diverse ages of human history. That's Theonomy and Christian Ethics, pages 184, 235, 201, and 202. Canadian Baptist theonomist Joe Boot writes this, God's creation covenant, or for want of a better term, paradise covenant with Adam, was still between the Creator and Lord of all and a creature and was thus a covenant of grace. So the Adamic covenant was a covenant of grace whose terms were all established by God. To walk with God as Adam and Eve eventually did is to live by grace. We should remember the good news. So here's what he thinks, this theonomist, thinks the good news is. We should remember the good news is that God is a living Lord and King. That fact is basic to the euangelion. There has never been a covenant of works as such. Theonomist Andrew Sandlin says, in theological language, the ground of eternal life in the prelapsarian era is the grace of God. What is his instrument and means? I believe that they are really no different than in the subsequent eras, faith in the Lord and accompanied by obedience. Sandlin also says, quote, there is no fundamental distinction between gospel and law. Gospel, law, and redemptive history, page 35. So here's what's going on. If you appropriate the old covenant judicial law and pull it in, well, why don't you appropriate the penalties? I mean, how are you picking and choosing? Of course you can appropriate the penalty. But if you're going to appropriate the old covenant judicial law and the penalties, then why don't you also appropriate the blessings? Right? And so keep the judicial law for life. Now, some theonomists will say something like, well, we're justified by faith alone. That's good, on the ground of Christ's imputed righteousness. That's good, they will say that. But then they'll turn around and they'll say, and yet, your works of obedience and sanctification are that which obtains for you the kingdom and the substance of life. But what's justification? Let's go back to that first question. What is justification? Is it not that you have a right and title to eternal life? God gives the kingdom to you as a free gift, not on the ground of your works. but as a free gift. And so what they give with one hand, you're justified by faith alone because of Christ's righteousness alone, I would argue they take away with the other if they're teaching that your sanctification is that which constructs life on earth, eternal life on earth for you. And then this gets often coupled with post-millennial teaching as well, and all these things are coming together. Now, the Reformed tradition, and I, and our confession, certainly believe that sanctification precedes glorification, right? And the Old Testament is a type of that. It gives us a type of that. So you must, you believe, you're justified, you're sanctified, and then you're glorified. And yet your sanctification is not that which obtains your glorification. These are rather gifts that God dispenses in a certain order. We should never think that our good works of obedience to the law even if they're graciously given by God, are that which in any sense is achieving, obtaining, as a cause of eternal life of any kind. Instead, they are themselves gifts that are eternal life. You see? And so this is where I think theonomists get confused, is they don't make careful distinctions, and they say, okay, well, you're justified by faith alone because of Christ alone, but then you have to work To obtain the inheritance and somehow you can start obtaining the inheritance through your sanctification here on earth and that is just That's a denial of the gospel. If you look with me at galatians 3 Galatians 3 verses 10 to 14 It says, for all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, for it is written, cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law and do them. Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law. The righteous shall live by faith, but the law is not a faith. Rather, the one who does them shall live by them. So that's what they're taking. They take that, do this and live, and they say, we're still doing that. But what does the Bible say? Christ did that. The law says, do this and live. The one who does them shall live by them. But verse 13, Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us. For it is written, cursed is everyone who's hanged on a tree. So look, this is part of the big debate. And we're going to maybe get into this a little bit later, I hope. But Adam was commanded to do this and live. He had to obey God. and continue in obedience to God for continued life. He could have eaten then of the tree of life and had, according to the text, forever life, eternal life in obedience to God. So now there's a debate about the relationship of Adam to the Christian. The theonomists, maybe not all of them, maybe not, just too many for my comfort, will say, that Christ died for our sins, and yet by grace, under Jesus, we are enabled by Christ to fulfill that original command which Adam failed to fulfill in order to obtain life. I think that's wrong. The right answer is this, what Adam failed to do The Lord Jesus, the second federal head, did and obtained life for us and gives us the kingdom as a gift of free grace. We're not building the kingdom. We're not achieving the kingdom. No way. We are receiving the kingdom as a gift of free grace. Now, does that mean we don't do good works? No, it doesn't. Of course, the Lord works in us to do good works, but he determines the effects of our works, and he gives us the kingdom. Our works are not building the kingdom, right? We preach the gospel, and the Lord builds the kingdom. Your preaching of the gospel doesn't construct the kingdom, because God does what he wants with the word of God. He saves the elect. He increases the hardness of the reprobate, right? And so we're not working to build the kingdom. Christ has achieved it and gives it to us as a free gift. And so I think this is a very important point to keep in mind when considering theonomy. And here's the point I'm making. If your hermeneutics are wrong about the old covenant and you're trying to resurrect the judicial law, the tendency will be to resurrect the entire shadow along with it. and import it in a real sense into the new covenant, which is very dangerous. And so this, I think, is an important critique of theonomy. So now we move on to the next point, which is the right use of judicial law. the right use of judicial law is to use its general equity. Now some, this is what's in our confession, which says that the general equity of the judicial law is of moral use. Now some theonomists call themselves general equity theonomists, and then they say that they're confessional because of that. But what do they mean? Well, I would argue that they appear to mean that the Old Testament judicial laws have been abrogated, but that the essential principles of the judicial law continue to bind all people today. We'll come back to this at the end, but remember that Doug Wilson said that Old Covenant judicial law forbids the boiling of a goat in his mother's milk. And that the core principle is that we may never take an instrument of life, milk, and use it to produce death, boil a goat in it. That's what Doug Wilson says. But is that what the term general equity actually means? That the essential principles of the judicial laws continue to bind all people today? Well, let's explore this. What did that Westminster Confession and Second London Confession mean by general equity? Chapter 19, 4 of the Confession says, "...of the people of Israel to them 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. Now general, what does that mean? General means that's common to all men, not just the elect, not just the people of the new covenant, not just people of the covenant of grace. General equity means the equity or the justice that's common to all mankind is of moral use. So, historically, we know what this means, because it's taught in various places, but John Calvin, for example, states, it is a fact that the law of God, which we call the moral law, is nothing else than a testimony of natural law, and of that conscience which God has engraved upon the minds of men. Consequently, the entire scheme of this equity of which we are now speaking has been prescribed in it, that is in the moral law. Hence, this equity alone must be the goal and rule and limit of all laws, Institutes 4, 20, and 15, and 16. Theodore Beza wrote this, although we do not hold to the forms of mosaic polity, yet when such judicial laws prescribe equity in judgments, which is part of the Decalogue. which is part of the Decalogue, we, not being under any obligation to them insofar as they were prescribed by Moses, to only one people, are nevertheless bound to observe them to the extent that they embrace that general equity which should everywhere be in force. The Lord commands that a deposit be returned, that thieves be punished, because it follows natural equity and expounds that perpetual precept of the Decalogue. Thou shalt not steal. To this extent, all are bound to fulfill them both. So that's what general equity is. When you find the commandments of the 10, any one of the 10 commandments In judicial law, that's what applies, period. It's nothing other than moral law. Now, does that mean all the judicial law has general equity? Yes, because every one of them has something of the moral law in it. But that's nonetheless the limit that we have to use as our boundaries of interpretation to apply judicial law today. So what are some of the rules, ways to find equity in the Old Covenant judicial laws? Here I'm using Francis Churitan, and you can look this up yourself in his three-volume Institutes of Elinctic Theology. But here's what he says. How can we find general equity in the judicial law? What methods should we use? Well, he says there's three things that determine equity, general equity in judicial law. So there's three things. First, we need to look for elements in judicial law that cut across all cultures, including non-Christian cultures. Remember, because they have the work of the law written on their hearts. We saw that last night in Romans 2. So pagan cultures will have general equity in them. Not all of them, not all consistently, but you'll find it peppered throughout the world in all different societies, this general equity. For example, the Greeks and the Romans had many things in their own laws that agree with judicial law. So that's the first point, what all the nations have that are consistent with judicial law. Second, we should look for elements in judicial law that are taught in the Ten Commandments and further explain them. This is a key point. We need to prove the connection of general equity to the Decalogue, to the Ten Commandments. The third point, third way to find general equity, is if judicial laws are repeated in the New Testament. That's a clear sign that they have general equity. Certain Old Testament judicial laws are clearly repeated. For example, the requiring of two or three witnesses. to establish a crime. That's repeated as well. And so those are the three things that we use to determine general equity of judicial law. First, you see it in non-Christian nations. Second, is it in the Ten Commandments? And third, is it repeated in the New Testament? And it's not just one or the other of those, or rather, it's not all three have to be there. It's one of them. Right? Just if it's there anywhere, any one of those three, then you have general equity in it. Now, this is an important concluding point. Ready? This is crucial. That is exactly the same procedure we would use in finding general equity in the laws of any nation at all. So we could go to Japanese law and use these same points and find general equity in Japanese law or not. You following? So we're treating the nation of Israel in the sense of its judicial law like any other nation. and we're finding general moral equity in it. Turretin writes this when he closes his section, although the best and wisest laws as far as the state of that people was concerned were sanctioned by God, it does not follow that on this account they ought to be perpetual. God from positive and free right could give them for a certain time and for certain reasons to some one nation which would not have force with respect to others. What is good for one nation is not immediately so for another. When Roman laws are to be preferred to the Mosaic, sometimes Turton says you prefer Roman law to Mosaic law. They're not preferred simply as enacted by men, but as derived from natural and common right. They can be more suitable to places, times, and persons. So we might choose Roman law over Old Covenant judicial law, if it fits the Decalogue better, or is consistent more with the New Testament, or with what's done all around the world. So let's look at some examples of this. So, if it's true that essential core principles of the judicial laws remain binding for us today, as general equity theonomists seem to teach, then consider how we might interpret Deuteronomy 25.4. So, I'm going to use the procedure that I think general equity theonomists are using. So, you're familiar with it. It says, you shall not muzzle an ox when it's treading out the grain. Well, how do we bring that over? Well, without the New Testament-inspired commentary, you might say that a core principle of this passage is you should allow your animals to feed while they're working. Does that not make sense? Don't muzzle the ox while it's treading out the grain. Well, that means if you have animals, let them feed while they're working. One way to apply this law might be to say that people should see to it that their hunting dogs always have access to a portion of the meat they kill during the hunt. as a matter of biblical law. You see? That would seem to be reasonable. It's an application of what I've just found as a core principle of judicial law. The law's been abrogated. I don't have an ox, but I have a dog. And so if my dog kills something, I am required to give him a portion of the meat. And yet, the New Testament does not derive any such core principle from Deuteronomy 25.4. Instead, what does the New Testament do? It finds the eighth commandment, you shall not steal. in that judicial law, right? That's what the New Testament teaches us to do. 1 Timothy 5, 17 and 18 says, let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. For the scripture says, you shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain, and the laborer deserves his wages. So don't steal from your pastors. He has a right to be paid by you for his work. You see? That's the eighth commandment. Take another example, Deuteronomy 22, 8, which is, you're familiar with this too, when you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof that you may not bring any of the guilt of blood upon your house if anyone should fall from it. So you know the situation in the Old Testament. They would often have places on the top of their houses where you could go up and and be up there. It's just another space. But imagine if there's no parapet or fence or wall railing around it, and you have guests up on top of your house, you could fall off. Also, sometimes these houses were all stacked together. And they would use it as a roadway on top of the houses. And if one house happened to not have a railing, and you're walking up there, you might fall off the edge. So one general equity theonomist wrote this we are not morally required to build a parapet around our roof line because we don't go up there But our but general equity would require a rail around your second story deck Okay So in this instance the application of general equity theonomy seems to keep tightly to the essential core principles of the judicial law in question not a roof a but a second story deck, not a parapet, but a railing. It's not the particulars of the law that are binding, but the essential principles. But is that the right way to handle it? It's crucial to understand that the general equity of the law of the parapet is not merely a matter of the essential principles of that particular law. What is it? It is the sixth commandment. You shall not murder. And so is the theonomist right in this case? Yeah, I mean, yeah, if you have a second story deck, you should put a railing around it, right? But it's far broader than that, because it's the sixth commandment. You shall not murder. And so We shouldn't just do what's expedient or cheaper or more convenient for ourselves. We need to protect the lives of everyone on our property or anywhere we can. So if you have a deadly illness, take precautions not to spread it to others as far as it depends on you. The general equity of the parapet would mean if you use guns, you practice gun safety principles. Salt your sidewalks after an ice storm. Drive safely so as not to endanger others. Don't leave electrical wires exposed in your home. But you see how every one of those is tied to the sixth commandment. It's about protecting life, do not murder. So let's do one more. Do not boil a goat in his mother's milk. So this is the one that we've been returning to over and over. What's that about? How do we find the general equity? Well, let me ask you, which command is it? What is your heart like? In fact, you see this if you go back even to Genesis 9, where you are not allowed to tear into an animal with your teeth without killing it and cooking it properly and drink its blood. Why not? What does it say about people who are cruel to animals? We know this today already. We just know it by observation. People who are cruel to animals, what's in their hearts? They're murderous. God spared the entire nation of Nineveh, partly, it says, surprisingly enough, and Jonah, because of the cattle. The righteous has regard for the life of his beast. It's a proverb. We have dominion over the animals, right? So we kill them and we can cook them properly and kill them humanely and all that's totally valid and good and given by God. But cruelty to animals is a murderous heart. John Gill takes this view in his commentary on not boiling a goat in his mother's milk. Which commandment does it come to? Back to the sixth, don't murder. Do not have, do not murder. And so that's how we would apply that judicial law. So in conclusion, not the way Doug Wilson did, but instead tying it to moral law. In conclusion, any understanding of the term general equity, which neglects the decalogue or natural law revealed in creation and conscience, as the essence of general equity, is not accurately defining the term according to its historic and confessional sense. Any version of general equity theonomy that does not look for a moral law that transcends the Old Testament judicial law but instead sees Old Testament judicial law as itself a subset of moral law that remains binding is not following the example of the New Testament and is inconsistent with our confession and in fact the entire Christian tradition. The greatest mistake of such a hermeneutic is it does not begin with the universal transcendent norms of natural and moral law summarized in the Ten Commandments, seeking to find those moral law principles within the judicial law. Rather, it begins with the judicial law themselves. and tries to uncover essential principles within those laws, wrongly assuming they are all essentially moral in order to apply them universally. So that is the end of my discussion of theonomy. And how much time do I have left? Oh, do I? So we can end here, and I would like to start the Christian nationalism early, if we could. Is that all right? So move the schedule up a little bit. Let me close with prayer. Father, we thank you for your grace, for your good word, your self-revelation. We thank you that all of these Laws that you have given reveal yourself to us and ultimately Jesus Christ, the true lawgiver and judge and the one who redeems us from his own just wrath. Thank you for such a great salvation in Christ Jesus. Help us not to be distracted to the left or to the right, getting caught up into fruitless controversies, but instead to be settled in Jesus to grow by grace in him one day after another, that your church would be built, your kingdom would grow, and we pray this in Jesus' name, amen.