A Response to a Theonomist

Von Ohlman has written a response to my article Not Under Law: Defending New Covenant Theology Against A Theonomic Objection. In that article, I argue that the New Covenant Scriptures are our standard for determining what carries over from the Old Covenant law and what doesn’t. I have also written a more lengthy refutation of theonomy called A Biblical Refutation of Theonomy. I recommend that people go read those for a more thorough discussion of the subject (the links to them are included at the end of this article). Mr. Ohlman’s article Everything Except… an Anti-theonomic Hermeneutic presents a number of objections against the critiques I have leveled against theonomy. I have found that the best way to address his article is in the form of a disputation. I will steel-man each of the arguments he presents against my position and provide a response to them.

---

Argument 1: Mr. Ohlman begins his critique of my position like this:

His first error is in thinking that the New Testament is silent. It is far from silent, it just doesn’t say what he wants it to say. The New Testament makes it very clear that the Law of God… which stretches from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation… is the standard by which human behaviour is judged. It is the yard stick by which sin is determined. (emphasis mine)

Response: Mr. Ohlman says, “The New Testament makes it very clear that the Law of God… which stretches from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation.” We need to pause right there. In my original article, I was talking about the law of Moses, which was given to Israel at Mount Sinai. That’s why I said “Old Covenant.” The Old Covenant was the covenant that God made with Israel after bringing them out of the land of Egypt, and He gave the law to them as the terms of that covenant. But here, Mr. Ohlman is talking about what theologians call “natural law.” The “natural law” refers to the universal moral standards that are binding in all ages. For example, things like murder (Genesis 4:8-15), sodomy (Genesis 19:4-9), adultery (Genesis 20:9-10; 39:7-9), rape (Genesis 34:2, 7, 31) and having a father’s wife or concubine (Genesis 49:4) are all condemned before the law of Moses was ever given at Mount Sinai. All of these things are also condemned within the law of Moses, and they are condemned in the New Testament (Matt 5:21–22; 1 John 3:12, 15; Jude 7; 2 Pet 2:6–7; Rom 1:26–27; 1 Cor 6:9–10; Matt 5:27–28; Heb 13:4; 1 Cor 5:1). The law of Moses does not stretch “from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation”; natural law does. So, Mr. Ohlman’s statement that the law (presumably the law of Moses) stretches “from Genesis to Revelation” is incorrect. The law of Moses wasn’t given until the book of Exodus after God delivered Israel. Mr. Ohlman’s critique is based on a failure to make a proper distinction between the two. Theonomy is specifically dealing with the application of the law of Moses to believers today and modern civil society.

Mr. Ohlman goes on to quote 1 John 3:4 from the KJV, “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” His point here is that the New Testament teaches that the Mosaic law is there to convict us of sin; but a more literal translation is given by the LSB, “Everyone who does sin also does lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.” The point of the text here is that someone who sins behaves without reference to law. They act as if they are autonomous. However, it is true that the law of Moses does convict of sin insofar as it states a universal moral truth. John is not talking about using the law of Moses to convict someone of the sin of wearing mixed fabrics (Leviticus 19:19) or failure to observe the feasts in Leviticus 23. The question is: How do we know which laws convict of sin and serve as a pattern of life for us today? How do we determine which laws are universal and which ones were meant specifically for the covenant nation of Israel? The advocate of New Covenant Theology answers with the New Testament Scriptures. I have yet to hear a consistent standard from a theonomist for determining which laws apply and which don’t. If the standard is not the New Testament, then what is it? This same point goes for his citation of James 2:9, “‘But if you show partiality, you are committing sin, being convicted by the law as transgressors.’” It is true that the law of Moses condemns partiality, but showing partiality is also part of universal moral law (Jacob shows partiality to Joseph in Genesis 37:3-4), and it is also condemned in the New Testament. That’s how we know it is a moral wrong that spans time and cultures. So, when the law of Moses explicitly states a moral standard of behavior that is universal, it brings conviction of sin. This is not the same thing as theonomy. Theonomy is the view that the “civil” law of the Mosaic Covenant is binding on Christians and modern civil society. It is this view that is unbiblical.

---

Argument 2: Mr. Ohlman writes:

Ryan’s basic hermeneutic regarding the relationship of the law to sin is this: that all of the Old Testament law is wiped out, but some of it is resurrected by the New Testament. The article I am specifically responding to here tries to defend the ‘resurrected in the New Testament’ part of this hermeneutic: trying to deal with the fact that neither the words nor the concept that ‘some is resurrected’ is found anywhere in the New Testament (and contradicted everywhere in the New Testament).

Response: This is not a correct representation of my position. My position is that certain things are always morally wrong (i.e., natural law), the law of Moses explicitly states these universal moral truths as well as many commands that were intended specifically for the covenant nation of Israel, and the New Covenant Scriptures are the means by which we determine the difference. In Scripture, the law of Moses is treated as a unit, and it constituted the terms of the covenant that God made with Israel. We are not under the Old Covenant law of Moses (1 Corinthians 9:21), but universal moral standards remain, as well as new commands for New Covenant believers (e.g., baptism and the Lord’s Supper). This is why I said in my previous article on this subject that we are not bound to those things in the law of Moses except for what is re-confirmed, either explicitly or implicitly, in the New Testament Scriptures. The New Testament is our standard for discerning what the universal moral law is within the law of Moses. If the New Testament does not re-confirm it, then we are out of bounds to take a particular law found within the law of Moses and apply it to New Covenant believers. I will say more on this as we continue answering the arguments.

---

Argument 3: Regarding Hebrews 8:10-13, Mr. Ohlman says:

In Hebrews 8:1, we see that the passage is talking about the Old Testament priesthood and in chapter 9, we see it talking about the various temple sacrifices.

Response: Hebrews 8:10-13 cannot merely be talking about the priesthood and temple sacrifices. Let’s take a look at Hebrews 9 more closely:

‘For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives. Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you.”’ (emphasis mine)

Hebrews 9:16-20 LSB

Notice in this text that the first covenant (the covenant that God established with Israel at Mount Sinai) was inaugurated with blood. When Moses had spoken every commandment the people, he took the blood and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people. That was the moment that the Old Covenant was ratified with Israel. What “book” was the writer of Hebrews talking about that was sprinkled by Moses? We can see it in Exodus 24:

‘Then Moses came and recounted to the people all the words of Yahweh and all the judgments; and all the people answered with one voice and said, “All the words which Yahweh has spoken we will do!” And Moses wrote down all the words of Yahweh. Then he arose early in the morning and built an altar at the foot of the mountain with twelve pillars for the twelve tribes of Israel. . . Then he took the book of the covenant and read it in the hearing of the people; and they said, “All that Yahweh has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient!” So Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant, which Yahweh has cut with you in accordance with all these words.” (emphasis mine)

Exodus 24:3-4, 7-8 LSB

The “book” that the writer of Hebrews mentions is the “book of the covenant.” This book contained “all the words of Yahweh and all the judgments.” In the context of Exodus 24, the “words of Yahweh” refer to all the commands that He had just given to Moses in Exodus 20:1–23:33. If you read that section of Scripture, you will see laws about sacrifices (Exod 20:22–26; 22:20; 22:29–30; 23:14–19), civil justice (Exod 21:1–11; 21:18–19; 21:22–25; 21:26–27), and judicial penalties (Exod 21:12–17; 21:20–21; 21:23–25; 21:29–30; 22:18–20). All these types of laws were contained within the “book of the covenant.” They were the terms of the covenant that God established with Israel.

So, when the writer of Hebrews tells us that the Old Covenant has been made “obsolete” in Hebrews 8:13 and that we are no longer under that covenant, that necessarily includes all those other laws as well. The text does not allow us to isolate those laws about sacrifices from the other laws dealing with civil justice or judicial penalties. Believers live in a New Covenant under the law of Christ (1 Corinthians 9:21), not the law of Moses. When the New Covenant Scriptures tell us that we are not under the Old Covenant, they are functioning as the standard for determining what binds us and what doesn’t.

---

Argument 4: The writer of Hebrews says in Hebrews 8:10 that God would put His laws into the minds of His people and that He would write them on their hearts. This is the New Covenant: that the Torah will be written on our hearts. This is a clear affirmation of the OT law.

Response: I addressed this objection in my article A Biblical Refutation of Theonomy. Here, I would like to ask a few questions that will illustrate the issue with Mr. Ohlman’s interpretation. When the writer of Hebrews quotes Jeremiah 31:31–34, saying that the law will be written on our hearts, does he mean that the laws about sacrifices are written on our hearts? What about the law that prohibits wearing a garment made of two kinds of material or breeding two kinds of cattle (Leviticus 19:19)? How about the laws against sowing two kinds of seed in your field (Deuteronomy 22:9) or eating pork (Deuteronomy 14:8)? What about the law against eating sea creatures without fins or scales (Leviticus 11:9–12)? What about the laws concerning cleanness and uncleanness (Leviticus 11–15)?

I’m sure you can see the problem at this point. We do not just automatically know these things in the New Covenant, and the New Covenant Scriptures reference some of these laws, saying we are not bound by them (Mark 7:19; Acts 10:15, 28; Rom 14:14, 20; 1 Tim 4:4–5; Col 2:16–17; Heb 9:10; Eph 2:15). If Mr. Ohlman intends to use the language of God writing His law on our hearts to argue that New Covenant believers are still bound to keep the law, then he runs up against the explicit teaching of the New Testament elsewhere. The writer of Hebrews is not saying that we have the entirety of the Mosaic law written on our hearts and put into our minds.

So, how are we to understand Hebrews 8:10? When God says, “I will put My laws into their minds and upon their hearts I will write them,” that language should be understood as speaking of regeneration (that moment when God changes your heart so that you desire to love and obey Him). God is talking about a person having a changed heart so that they truly know Him and have the desire to do His will. How do we know His will for us? We look to the New Covenant Scriptures. They tell us what applies to us and what does not. We are not under the law of Moses (1 Corinthians 9:21), but under the “law of Christ.” We now live for God out of Spirit-driven love and a desire to follow Christ.

---

Argument 5: Mr. Ohlman writes:

Hebrews 8:11-12 speaks of modalities: of the law not needing to be taught, for He would put it in our hearts. Of mercy given to unrighteousness, and a forgetting of sin and iniquity. This is a blessed picture of the gospel, and of how the gospel moved from a temple and priest oriented religion to a priesthood of all believers… but the Torah is in the center of it.

Response: I already addressed the part about God writing His law on our hearts in the previous section. Here, I want to point out that Mr. Ohlman states, “This is a blessed picture of the gospel, and of how the gospel moved from a temple and priest oriented religion to a priesthood of all believers.” How does Mr. Ohlman know that the gospel “moved from a temple and priest oriented religion to a priesthood of all believers”? Because he is taking that redemptive-historical shift from the New Testament Scriptures. The New Testament is functioning as the basis for this claim because that is how it interprets the Old Testament. Mr. Ohlman simply doesn’t go far enough. The New Testament also says that the Old Covenant has been made “obsolete,” or “decommissioned.” It fulfilled its purpose, and we now live under a New Covenant. That is why theonomy (the idea that we can apply the law of Moses to civil society and new covenant believers) is unbiblical. The New Testament simply does not allow for it.

---

Argument 6: Regarding Romans 3:31, Mr. Ohlman writes:

In other words, should the average Christian, when listening to Paul and the other apostles, understand them to mean that the Gospel of Christ, the Doctrines of the New Testament church, involve ‘making void’ the law? Does the idea of faith negate the idea of law?

His argument here is that Romans 3:31 upholds the law rather than getting rid of it. He then states:

So the two parts of the anti-theonomic thesis here are both false. It is false that the New Testament (and Jeremiah 31) teach the obliteration of the law of God and its replacement by a New Testament law code

Response: First, I never stated that the New Testament teaches the “obliteration” of the law of God. The law of Moses was not “obliterated”; it was “decommissioned.” There is a key difference between the two. The word “obliterated” suggests that I believe the law of Moses was completely destroyed and has no relevance to us today. That is not true. We still have the law of Moses in our Bibles, and we still learn from it. The difference is that when we (New Covenant believers) read through the law of Moses, we see it as pointing forward to and finding its fulfillment in Christ. Once Christ accomplished His mission, the law of Moses became “obsolete” or “decommissioned,” not destroyed. The law of Moses fulfilled the purpose for which God gave it, and now we no longer live under it as a covenantal system. That does not mean it does not contain universal moral truths within it, but we discern those with the New Covenant Scriptures.

As for Romans 3:31, Paul’s point in that passage is that the law convicts of sin (Romans 3:20) and our faith does not nullify this aspect of the law. I explained the convicting nature of the law of Moses earlier. The law both points to Christ and convicts of sin. When we place our faith in Christ, we uphold these two aspects of the law because Christ paid the penalty for breaking it and fulfilled it. As believers, we now live under the law of Christ, which is following the teachings of Christ and the Apostles as laid out in the New Covenant Scriptures. That is our rule of life. That means some things carry over, are deepened, and expanded in the New Covenant, while other things are no longer obligatory.

---

Argument 7: Mr. Ohlman writes:

But when one reads the works of anti-theonomists, they are remarkably reticent… one might even call them silent… on their proposals in this area. Let us take a primary case: the punishment for murder. Let us ask the anti-theonomists for their nomos, their law. Should murder be illegal in the eyes of the civil magistrate? How should it be defined? How should it be punished? Who should execute (pun intended) the punishment? What should be the rules of evidence?

Response: Mr. Ohlman is arguing that without theonomy, we have no standard by which to determine what laws to legislate in civil society. The implication is that, without theonomy, you are left with the subjective opinions of men regarding civil governance. In my experience debating theonomists, this argument is the primary motivating factor for embracing theonomy. Unfortunately for the theonomist, this is not a biblical argument. It is not an argument derived from a consistent exegesis of the biblical text; it is an argument based on what is practical. If our reasoning about practical living causes us to embrace a position that runs up against the clear teaching of the New Testament, then there is something wrong with our reasoning.

There are two important points to mention in response to this argument. First, the theonomist is in a similar predicament when it comes to deciding which laws in the law of Moses apply and which ones do not. I mentioned earlier the laws about clean and unclean (Leviticus 11–15), sowing two kinds of seed in your field (Leviticus 19:19), and so forth. So, how does the theonomist know which laws should be applied to civil society and which ones should not be applied? If the standard is not the New Testament Scriptures, then what is it? Also, I must point out that theonomists disagree with one another on how to apply particular laws out of the law of Moses. Unless a theonomist can provide a clear standard for determining which laws apply to us today, he has the same problem of subjectivity. Second, Scripture is not silent about universal moral truths that we can use as a basis for legislation. Below, I quote what I wrote in answer to this objection in my article A Biblical Refutation of Theonomy:

We can understand what God holds the nations accountable for by looking at how He judged the pagan nations of the Old Testament, who were not under the Old Covenant, and tracing these moral principles throughout the rest of the Bible. God judges the nations for things like cruelty, exploitation, betrayal, hatred, desecration, and bloodshed (Amos 1–2; Genesis 19 with Ezekiel 16:49–50; Jonah 3:8; Nahum 3:1–4). We can make these biblical observations concerning the universal natural law and use them as an adequate basis for legislation in modern civil governments. The precise laws to legislate for precise contexts (which should reflect these principles) are worked out with the use of reason and wisdom in the legislative process.

We don’t have an exhaustive list of what laws to legislate for all societies in Scripture. The Bible gives us principles to go by and those principles serve as guardrails for legislation. There may be a degree of subjectivity in this, but the theonomist has the same problem. When we look at how God judged the pagan nations in the Old Testament, we can see what He holds the nations accountable for. It’s not like we are completely left to our own devices. To answer Mr. Ohlman’s question regarding the penalty for murder, that one was stated long before the law of Moses was given:

‘“Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.’

Genesis 9:6 LSB

The proper penalty for murder is death, life for life. It is grounded in man being made in the image of God.

---

Summary

From these seven arguments, we see that Mr. Ohlman misunderstood the position I was putting forward and equivocates on the phrase “law of God.” He uses that phrase to refer to Scripture from Genesis to Revelation, but that is not the same thing as theonomy. Theonomy is the application of the law of Moses to New Covenant believers and modern civil society.

Mr. Ohlman’s response to Hebrews 8:10–13 was twofold: (1) he argued that the language “I will write My law on their hearts” affirms the validity of the law of Moses for New Covenant believers, and (2) that Hebrews 8 and 9 address only the sacrificial and priestly aspects of the law. I refuted the first point by showing that the “law written on their hearts” cannot refer to the entirety of the law of Moses (it speaks of regeneration), and I refuted the second point by going to the “book of the covenant” in Hebrews 9:19, which contained laws about sacrifices, civil justice, and judicial penalties.

Mr. Ohlman argued that the law of God convicts of sin, which means the New Testament cannot be interpreted as abolishing it. I pointed out that the law of Moses convicts insofar as it states a universal moral truth, and we discern those universal moral truths by using the New Testament.

Mr. Ohlman also misunderstood the position I put forward in my previous articles, thinking that I believe the law of Moses was “obliterated.” I corrected this by pointing out that the law of Moses constituted the terms of the Old Covenant that God made with Israel; it was not “obliterated”—it was “decommissioned.” The law of Moses regulated Israel and pointed forward to Christ. Once Christ accomplished His mission, He rendered the law of Moses obsolete as a covenantal rule of life for the New Covenant believer.

As for his argument about what to legislate and what not to legislate, I pointed out that the theonomist faces the same problem when determining which laws apply to our modern setting and how to apply them. I also showed that we can derive general principles for legislation by looking at what God judged the pagan nations for in the Old Testament.

I hope those who read this have found it helpful in clarifying the issue of theonomy and can see for themselves that the Bible does not teach it. The New Testament says we are not under the law of Moses (1 Corinthians 9:21; Galatians 3:23–25) and that the Old Covenant has been rendered obsolete (Hebrews 8:13). The New Testament’s teaching on this subject clearly shows that theonomy (applying the law of Moses to believers and modern civil society) is unbiblical.

---

Links

This is Mr. Ohlman’s article:

This is my article A Biblical Refutation of Theonomy:

This is my article Not Under Law: Defending New Covenant Theology Against a Theonomic Objection: