There once was a man named Saul. This man was a Hebrew, he actually calls himself a Hebrew of Hebrews. (Phil. 3:5) He had a genealogy that proved it and he sat under one of the prominent teachers in Israel. (Acts 22:3) Saul was a very learned man, he was a Pharisee. As a Pharisee, he had the Tanakh (Hebrew Old Testament) memorized. Saul also said of himself that he was blameless as touching the law. Which law you may ask? That old testament Mosaic law. He knew the ins and outs of it. He knew that false prophets were to be killed and that was his mission.
This man, Saul, was at the stoning of a man named Stephen (who is called the first Christian martyr). Saul was actually guarding the coats for the ones that were killing Stephen. (Acts 7:58) He was not only in agreement with the stoning but complicate. Now in Saul’s mind and according to Mosaic law, it was the right and good thing to do. Stephen was a heretic, a false prophet, according to them. Stephen was preaching that Jesus was the long awaited Messiah of Israel and if He wasn’t then Stephen would be a heretic. So Saul and others were applying theonomic law in the case of being a false prophet. (Deut. 18:20)
After this, Saul is said to start “ravaging the church, entering house after house; and dragging off men and women, he would put them in prison.” (Acts 8:3) Saul, once again, is justified in doing this because it was against the “church” and they were seen as heretics. So, Saul, once again is applying theonomic law after the New Covenant had been established. Then something happened…
This man named Saul was on a road to Dasmascus and on his way, he desired to capture Christians and have them put to death. However, while on this road Somebody appeared to Him. This Somebody is the One who established the New Covenant by His blood, none other than Jesus Christ. When He appeared, He blinded Saul and said to Him, “why are you persecuting Me?” Now I could bring out a whole sermon on that question but I just wanted to show the history of this man Saul before he met the Lord Jesus Christ. He was a Pharisee, a Hebrew of Hebrews, a very learned Jew, he say’s he was blameless according to the law! He was practicing what many today would call “theonomy.” Taking the Old Testament law and applying them to New Covenant times. Yet, he was wrong and I’ll demonstrate.
This man Saul, after his conversion, went by his Roman name Paul, not his Jewish name anymore. He is the Apostle Paul. I’m sure you knew most of what I already went over but I wanted to establish the thought process. He as a Jew went about killing Christians because they were heretics according the the Jews. He was applying that Old Testament law to them. This is actually a very great example God has given to us. He was before conversion, a theonomist, yet after conversion we see a different Paul.
For example, as was already mentioned, false prophets were to be killed in the Old Testament times. Yet Paul’s tune changed after conversion in his letters to the churches. He states in Titus 3:10, that if a man is a heretic (false prophet) to reject him after the first and second admonition. Why didn’t Paul say to kill him? You say, because it’s not the churches job but the states. Let’s take the example that was already given before. Did Paul have a problem delivering heretics to the “state” to have them killed in the Old Covenant? He did not. He actually sought after the opportunity. However under the New Covenant he simply say’s to “reject” them because he has condemned himself (Titus 3:11). Now this isn’t an isolated even in the New Covenant either.
In Acts 20 Paul is speaking to the Ephesian elders and warning them that wolves are going to come and seek to devour the flock. He even say’s that they will come from within the church. Yet in his warning, he did not tell them to deliver them up to the “state” or to stone them, he simply tells the elders to “be on guard for yourselves and all the flock.” Now you say, “that’s an argument from silence” however, the New Testament is silent on killing heretics. There are other examples, not only by Paul but others as well (see footnote #1). Let’s see one more by Paul before I move on though.
In Romans 16:17 Paul say’s about heretics, “keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them.” Those that cause dissensions (divisions i.e. heretics) he say’s to turn away from them. If it was the “states” job to kill them and the churches job to identify them, why doesn’t Paul tell them to turn them over to the “state” but rather say’s to simply turn away from them? Now this is what the New Testament teaches concerning heretics, it nowhere tells us to deliver them to the state or kill them, it tells us to mark, expose, avoid, and turn away from them. (Also see 2 Tim. 3:5; 2 Thes. 3:14)
I know I have waxed longer than any other blog post but I have much more to cover and I will seek to now. Heresy wasn’t the only sin that was punishable by death but God has given us others as well. One of them specifically happened in the New Covenant in a church that Paul was writing to. In Lev. 20:11 it say’s, “‘If there is a man who lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.” This is a very specific sin and one that seems a little crazy today doesn’t it? A man sleeping with his step-mother is something that should never happen. However, it did happen under the New Covenant as well. In 1 Cor. 5 Paul deals with a man that sleeps with his father’s wife. In 1 Cor. 5:1 it say’s, “It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.” So this is something that should even be named amongst the pagans, yet it was happening in a church! Now, according to Lev. 20:11 the answer is simple right? They are to die. Whether you want to say it’s the states job or the churches job, the command is to put them to death according to Leviticus. However, what does Paul say? He say’s to not keep company with him anymore v. 11, to not even eat with him (which I would think to be speaking about the Holy Communion) v.11, and to put him away from yourselves in v. 13. In other words, excommunicate this so called brother from the church. If theonomy was applicable in the first century church, why the silence on this matter? I mean it’s a clear violation of the Levitical law, what some call the holiness code. Maybe because we are in a new covenant, which in it, contains new laws by which the New Jerusalem, the Church, is to live by? I will seek now to demonstrate that.
Now that I have covered a couple very clear violations that happened in the New Covenant, that under the old administration were punishable by death, let me move on to the covenant. As I just previously mentions, the New Covenant Church is actually under a New Covenant, and with a covenant comes laws. In the New Covenant we can typically see these laws, in the latter portion of the epistles. They were written to teach us what we should believe, and how we should live. Hence why they are called, “didactic” literature, or “teaching” literature. The gospels and Acts, are historical narratives that tell us the story, the history and the didactics teach us what the history means to us and for us. There are very clear commands or laws laid out in the New Covenant, which I find odd that those that argue for theonomy, ask where would we get our laws from. They are all over the New Covenant! I do not need to go over them all, you can just flip to the latter portion of any Pauline Epistle and see them clearly (Romans-Philemon). This doesn’t mean commands aren’t in the other epistles or historical narratives though. They are all over the New Testament! There is one main portion of scripture I do want to look at though for this study and it’s in Galatians 4.
In Galatians, Paul is dealing with those that were coming into the church and telling the Christian’s that they needed to still keep the Mosaic law, specifically circumcision. Paul had some very choice words for these people, he anathematizes them and say’s he wishes they would mutilate themselves. However in chapter 4 Paul gives us an allegory (in his words Gal. 4:24). The allegory he gives us is of two women, Hagar and Sarah, which represent two covenants. He say’s Hagar is Mt. Sinai (i.e. the place that the law and mosaic covenant was given) and corresponds to the “present Jerusalem” which he say’s is in bondage with her children. Now this was the Jerusalem that was present in Paul’s day, which was destroyed in 70 AD. The picture of Sarah is of the New Covenant and he say’s she represents the Jerusalem which is above, (See Hebrews 12:26; Rev. 21:2) and is free! Paul has clearly set forth the two covenants, the Mosaic that was established on Mt. Sinai, and the New Covenant which was established on Mt. Calvary. One produces bondage, one produces freedom. I think we would all agree on this so far.
However, Paul goes further than most are willing today. He say’s in v. 30 to “cast out the slave woman and her son.” This is talking about the old covenantal system, that mosaic system. He say’s to cast it out! Get rid of it! Now this should go without saying that Paul didn’t mean to have bonfire so you could burn your Tanakh or Pentateuch. Paul tells us elsewhere that the old testament is for our learning, however that old system, is no longer applicable to a New Covenant church. It passed away in 70 AD with the Temple. This is why the language of the New Testament speaks about the old covenant that was “becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.” It disappeared and became obsolete in 70 AD.
Now this language of “casting out the slave woman and her son” when talking about the Mosaic covenant, might be hard to grasp from an allegory Paul gives in Galatians 4, I think it’s clear though. However, he speaks the same way in another portion of scripture in clear cut, non-allegorical, language. In 2 Cor. 3:6-11 Paul speaks of being a minister of the New Covenant. In this portion of scripture Paul speaks of the New Covenant as of the Spirit, but the Old Covenant as of the letter. He say’s that the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Very similar to Gal. 4 language. Paul actually calls the old ministration (his words) a ministration of death and in case we would like to try to limit this to simply ceremonial laws, he say’s “the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones.” Which laws were written and engraven in stones? Not simply the ceremonial laws but the decalogue (10 commandments) itself. Now I want us to see something in this portion of scripture though. First, he did call that old law, glorious, and I’d agree, however he said, “For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.” In other words, that Old Covenantal system which was glorious, is done away, but that which remains, the New Covenant is much more glorious! (Read Hebrews if you don’t see this)
So in closing I want to reiterate what Paul has taught us. That Old Covenantal system, though glorious as it was, because it was by this system that brought forth the Messiah, was done away in 70 AD when the LORD destroyed that system and all the elements in it. Now brethren, we Christians under the New Covenant as the writer of Hebrews says, “For you have not come to a mountain that may be touched and to a blazing fire, and to darkness and gloom and whirlwind. (Heb. 12:18)” i.e. Mt. Sinai. Rather, “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel. (Heb. 12:22-24)” So since, “we receive a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us show gratitude, by which we may offer to God an acceptable service with reverence and awe; for our God is a consuming fire. (Heb. 12:28-29)
For His Glory
#1 (See 2 Jn. 1:7-11 John say’s don’t receive them in your house, not to kill them. Also 2 Pet. 2, no mention of delivering them up to the “state” or killing them. The whole book of Jude is about heretics yet Jude say’s “But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith; praying in the Holy Spirit; keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life.)
Sovereign Grace Apologetics 