Bahnsen, Greg L. By This Standard: The Authority of God's Law Today. Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1985.

In this book, Greg Bahnsen argues for the validity of Old Testament laws, except for ceremonial laws. He argues specifically that the civil laws of the Old Testament, including capital punishment, should be applied today in civil matters. This is the distinctive teaching of the "theonomy."¹ Bahnsen's book attempts "to distill for a wider reading audience the more extensive discussions of the validity of God's law which can be found in my book, Theonomy in Christian Ethics (2nd ed., Nutley, New Jersey: Craig Press, 1984)."

I commend Bahnsen (who died in 1995) for his conviction that Scripture is the ultimate authority in doctrine and ethics. I commend his desire that biblical instruction be applied to both public and private life. I commend his willingness to obey Scripture. However, I believe that Bahnsen misunderstood the teaching of the Bible, especially the way the New Testament defines its own differences with the old covenant. This review will describe Bahnsen's view and point out what I believe to be errors involved in it.

Matthew 5:17-19 is the frequently cited foundation scripture for Bahnsen's understanding: Christ did not come to abrogate the law. Rather, Jesus said that as long as heaven and earth remain, every jot and tittle of the law will also remain, and Christians should obey and teach even the smallest commandments. He writes:

Our attitude must be that all Old Testament laws are presently our obligation unless further revelation from the Lawgiver shows that some change has been made.... We must assume continuity with the Old Testament rather than discontinuity. This is not to say that there are no changes from Old to New Testament. Indeed, there are — important ones. However, the word of God must be the standard which defines precisely what those changes are for us (p. 3).

Bahnsen makes these exceptions:

· localized imperatives — commands that applied only once — e.g., to build the tabernacle, to kill all the Canaanites.

· cultural details — e.g., ax heads, parapets on flat roofs.

· administrative details — e.g., form of government, location of capitol.

· typological foreshadows — e.g., ceremonial laws, including laws about the land, which typified the kingdom of Christ (pp. 5-6).

Bahnsen clarifies what he is not teaching:

· Obedience cannot forgive sins or justify anyone. However, forgiven people should obey God, as empowered by the Holy Spirit.

· God's laws are not to be imposed by force upon society. Rather, they are the standard Christian voters and officials should seek.

· Civil officials are not obligated to enforce every biblical law. E.g., there is no way to enforce laws against envy and unbelief. "Rulers should enforce only those laws for which God revealed social sanctions to be imposed" (p. 10).

In support of his position, Bahnsen argues that Jesus viewed Old Testament laws as authoritative and taught people to obey them. Paul also taught that the law is good, holy, and just, and Paul quoted the OT as still valid in moral authority. "In the midst of his most earnest writing against the Judaizers he can appeal repeatedly to the Law itself (for example, Gal. 3:6-14...)" (pp. 160-1). Gentiles were expected to obey the laws, too, since God's morality is constant. "The law revealed to the Jews in spoken form has been revealed in unspoken form to the Gentiles" (p. 327; cf. Rom. 1:19; 2:14).

Based on Romans 13, Bahnsen says that civil rulers are ministers of God, executing the wrath of God, and therefore ought to judge and execute according to God's standards — otherwise they will have to use a human standard, and "there is then no logical barrier to totalitarianism" (p. 265). "The penal sanctions for crime should be those revealed in the law of the Lord" (p. 271). The new covenant, he writes, citing Heb. 10:16, puts the old covenant standards on our hearts (pp. 313-4).

In keeping the covenant theology of the Westminster Confession, Bahnsen begins with the presumption of continuity: "We live under the same essential covenant as did the Old Testament saints" (p. 314). "All of the covenants of God are unified into one overall Covenant of Grace" (pp. 41-2).² Bahnsen cited Hebrews 8:6-13 as evidence for his assertion, yet the context in Hebrews clearly differentiates the covenants as two, not as somehow unified. Paul likewise contrasts the two covenants rather than attempting to demonstrate their unity (2 Cor. 3, Gal. 3).

Bahnsen only superficially addresses the NT scriptures expressing discontinuity. He writes, "The establishment of the New Covenant does not imply the abrogation of the Mosaic law or its depreciation in any sense!" (p. 43). "God does not alter the words of His covenant" (p. 88). These statements are so sweeping that they are inaccurate. Bahnsen himself admits that the ceremonial laws of Moses are abrogated. He deals with Acts 15, which is specifically about the laws of Moses, in only one paragraph, saying only that the minimalist view is "incredible" (p. 308). He does not deal with any moderate views, in effect dismissing the chapter with a wave of the hand, making no attempt to deal with it exegetically.³ Does he have a different definition of "Mosaic law" than the apostolic definition of "law of Moses"? It is not clear.

"God has the same standard for all men," he writes. "That written law was intended as a model for all nations" (pp. 235-6). But did God really expect gentiles to celebrate the Israelites' exodus from Egypt? Did he expect them to keep the same harvest festivals? Did he require them to have Levitical priests? Did he expect all nations to require rapists to marry their victims and to have the same rules about testing a wife's sexual faithfulness? The Bible does not require this, nor does it make the claims that Bahnsen does.⁴

Bahnsen overstates his case: "Something that was sinful in the Old Testament is likewise sinful for us in the New Testament, for God's standards are not subject to fluctuation from age to age" (p. 44). But an old covenant person who worked and ate on the Day of Atonement would be sinning, whereas a person in the new covenant would not. The standards do change. The fact that the NT makes some changes shows that we should not make categorical statements about the continuing validity of all law.

Bahnsen paints with too broad a brush when he says "the law is a transcript of the holiness of God" (p. 49). If we are talking about the moral law, Bahnsen's claim is defensible. But Bahnsen wants to make it cover the civil and punitive laws, as well. But there is no exegetical justification for applying the claim to civil laws but not ceremonial laws. Bahnsen seems to assume what he is attempting to prove. He has taken a truth about moral law and applied it to the Torah, which includes ceremonial and civil laws. The fact that both the moral law and the Torah can be called "the law" does not mean that concepts that are true for one can be assumed to be true for the other.⁵

Statements about "the law" need to be tested: Does this principle apply to the ceremonial laws? If not, then it should not be stated as a categorical principle about "the law." Bahnsen knows that categorical statements are not true of the ceremonial laws, i.e., that exceptions exist and the principle is not categorical, but he assumes that civil laws are not also an exception. He assumes that the civil laws are, in effect, moral laws. He writes, "Every statute revealed by God authoritatively defines the holiness, goodness, and perfections which God's people are to emulate in every age" (p. 50). True, we are to emulate perfect holiness in every age, but holiness now is not defined by old covenant rules about uncleanness, fasting on the Day of Atonement, wearing tassels on our garments, etc.⁶

In one place Bahnsen writes, "To lay aside any of God's law or view its details as inapplicable today is to oppose God's standard of holiness" (p. 51). But he admits that certain administrative details do not apply today (p. 6). He is using different meanings of "law," and it is often not clear which meaning he intends. He writes, "If the validity of the law (or a portion thereof) has expired in the New Testament, as some claim, then what are we to make of scriptural assertions that God does not alter His covenant word?" (p. 133). A good question, indeed! The New Testament is clear that some portions of the OT law have expired. We must therefore adjust our understanding of the permanence of God's covenant words.

We can see this again if we return to Matt. 5:17-19. Did Jesus really say that absolutely nothing will disappear from the law? "Christ endorsed every jot and tittle of the law of God (unless qualified by Scripture elsewhere)" (p. 324) — but Jesus did not make the qualification that Bahnsen adds. We still have to deal with the fact that the New Testament says that some portions of the law have become obsolete. We must therefore adjust our understanding of Matt. 5:17-19.

Some OT laws are still valid, and some are not. We agree on that. So the real question is, Which laws are still valid? Quoting Matt. 5:17 (or any other verse emphasizing continuity) cannot answer the question of which. Quoting verses about obedience cannot answer the question of which. We need to look closer at the NT verses that tell us about laws becoming obsolete.

"There is no textual indication that the Old Covenant standard has been categorically laid aside" (p. 168). On the contrary: Hebrews 8:13 says that the old covenant (not just a portion of it) is obsolete.⁷ The first covenant has been set aside (Heb. 10:9). Laws added under Moses were temporary (Gal. 3:15-25).⁸ The old covenant was a ministry of condemnation and death, and it was temporary (2 Cor. 3:6-11). These passages deal with the old covenant in a categorical way. The moral law, which antedated the old covenant, continues to be valid, but the old covenant does not, and it is therefore not correct to presume continuity for laws given through Moses.⁹

In summary, although Bahnsen acknowledges some discontinuities between old and new covenants, he fails to deal with the exegetical evidence of discontinuities. He is inconsistent in that he uses NT affirmations of continuity as categorical, when he also recognizes that exceptions exist. In other words, the way he uses the verses (categorical continuity) proves more than he wants them to prove, which shows that he is misinterpreting what the verses are saying. They need more qualification than he gives them. He fails to distinguish the permanence of the moral law over against the impermanence of the laws of Moses, that is, the old covenant.