The following Scripture passages are often used as prooftexts against the doctrine of theonomy. However, such use of them fails to take into account the whole counsel of God, and in any case, when the passages are analyzed closely it is revealed that they are in no way hostile to the abiding validity of the law of God. Below, we give a theonomic answer to the critics use of these passages against us:
The Book of Galatians: The book of Galatians is a favorite resource for those who wish to disprove the theonomic thesis. However, all efforts to use Galatians to this end are faulty because of a failure to understand the context of the epistle. Paul is not condemning the law’s use for sanctification, but rather for justification. The error of the Judaizers was not advocating the continuing validity of the Old Testament moral laws and case law applications in the New Covenant. They were not the ancient forerunners of Rushdoony and Bahnsen, and hence ancient theonomists, but rather that they were teaching and advocating salvation by works and that keeping the ceremonial law, especially circumcision, were necessary for justification and to be saved. It is against this that Paul defends the Gospel, which was given by grace and received of faith. It is by faith alone that one is saved, and not by works, whether the works prescribed by God, or by men, lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:9)
Romans 3:27:
Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? Nay; but by the law of faith. (Romans 3:27) Paul’s statement here of a law of a faith has sometimes been taken to refer to a “moral code dictated by saving faith rather than by God’s revealed law.”[1] But this interpretation fails to take into account the fact that there is no ancient Greek word for legalism, and so Paul used the word law to refer to this in some of his uses of that word. Whether Paul means legalism or the law of God, or a legalistic use of the moral law, must be determined by the context. A failure to understand this has been a major stumbling block to those trying to determine what Paul’s attitude was toward the Old Testament Law.
Romans 6:14:
“For sin shall not have dominion over you, for ye are not under the law, but under grace.” (Romans 6:14)
One of the favorites of dispensationalists and unfortunately one of the most overused passages in the Bible. Ripped out of its context, this verse is used as a prooftext to attempt to prove the abrogation of Old Testament Law for the New Covenant. In reality, what this verse is saying is that we not under a legal system of works righteousness but are under grace instead. Or to use the language of Reformed covenant theology, we are under the Covenant of Grace, Paul is saying, not the Covenant of Works. This interpretation is evident when we remember that law and grace were not antithetical to each other under the Old Covenant. The Jews were under the Covenant of Grace when they received the law by God through Moses. In verse 13, Paul asks the question whether believers should yield their bodies over to sin as instruments of sin, or as instruments of righteousness to God. His answer is that we should do the latter, because sin shall not dominion over us because we are under grace, not law. And the very next verse (verse 15) states “What then, shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid!” (Romans 6:15) Since sin is the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4), we cannot interpret verse 14, as saying that we are no longer under obligation to keep God’s law; that interpretation would have believers violating the law (i.e., sinning), the very thing that Paul says we must not do (in the strongest possible terms), if we are not under a legal system of works based righteousness. Paul goes on to say in 18, that we made free from the dominion of sin so that we could become the servants of righteousness. What is righteousness and what is not would not be possible for us without the law of God.[2]
Romans 7:4,6:
“Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in newness of letter.” (Romans 7:4-6)
Again, in these passages, Paul is referring not to God’s law, but to a legal system of works-based righteousness. At the death of Christ, the old man, whom the presence of the law served to make a slave under sin, and make explicit the fact that man was incapable of meeting the standards set by that law, died, and a new man was resurrected with Christ. (Romans 7:7-25) This new man is resurrected to bring forth fruit unto God; it would be completely contrary to this statement to say that the man is free from God’s law and can therefore sin (transgress the law that he is allegedly no longer bound to obey, and hence sin). Rather, this man is set free from the bondage of sin, which came through the law. But now dead to sin through Christ, he is free to keep the law, and has the Holy Spirit to enable him to do so. He will not keep the law perfectly, but does not have to, because Christ did so on his behalf. Nevertheless, he has been saved unto good works (i.e., law keeping).[3]
Romans 10:4:
“For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth.” (Romans 10:4)
Contrary any dispensational spin that may be put on it, what this verse plainly means is that the receiving of Christ means that one is freed from the burden of having to try to become right with God by his own merits and by his own good works. The Gospel of Christ means the end of trusting in oneself for salvation. When one believes on Christ, their trust in themselves is removed, and their trust for salvation is transferred to Christ. Such a meaning should be obvious. [4]
2 Corinthians 3:
In this passage, Paul sets forth the fact that the law cannot be exalted above the Gospel; the gospel is superior to the law because it does what the law could never do: make man right with God. Though Paul associates the law with condemnation, this is because the law spelled death for the unsaved man. (Romans 7:7-10) When Paul says that the veil is done away in Christ (verse 14) he is referring to the limitations and imperfections of the old covenant. He is saying that the New Covenant is greater then the old.[5]
Titus 3:9:
“But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.” (Titus 3:9)
Paul is not depreciating the law, but rather urging Timothy to avoid particular disputes about the law. Note the foolish questions, genealogies and contentions that Paul includes in his charge. To understand this charge, we must refer back to Titus 1:10-11, and 14, where the false teachers that Paul charges Timothy to deal with are those that give teach “Jewish fables,” and the “commandments of men.” What Paul is telling Timothy to avoid is Rabbinical legalism, and Hellenistic Judaism, wherein the Old Testament was allegorized in the fashion of Greek myths. Paul is telling Timothy not to heed the disputes about the law that were started by these false teachers, who falsely used the law as a pretext for their argument.[6]
Luke 16:16:
“The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man passeth into it.” (Luke 16:16).
Any dispensational understanding of this verse is immediately nullified by the very next verse “And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass than one tittle of the law to fall.” (Luke 16:17) Jesus is simply saying that the Old Covenant lasted until John and the New Covenant came in with him. To immediately clear up any thought that the New Covenant’s arrival nullified the law, Jesus added the words of verse 17 and cleared up that line of thinking on the spot. (c.f. Matthew 5:17-19)
[1] Greg L. Bahnsen Theonomy in Christian Ethics (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presybterian and Reformed Publishing Company 1977) [2nd Edition 1984) p. 221
[2] Ibid
[3] Ibid
[4] Ibid
[5] Ibid
[6] Ibid
