# Different Positions on Mosaic Law



## Miller (Aug 2, 2010)

I'm not sure I'm asking the right question but hopefully y'all will know what I mean.

If one is not a Klinean, Theonomist or Mono-Covenantal what other options are there?

Does that make sense?


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 2, 2010)

You might profitably read the first article in this book, which details most of the different positions on the Mosaic covenant. There are a fair number of positions that do not fit any of those three categories.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 2, 2010)

Miller said:


> I'm not sure I'm asking the right question but hopefully y'all will know what I mean.
> 
> If one is not a Klinean, Theonomist or Mono-Covenantal what other options are there?
> 
> Does that make sense?



Which part or parts of the Mosaic law are you talking about?

We take a Reformed view of the law here. The law can be divided into three sections which aren't totally watertight but are helpful:

(a) Moral law - permanent, abiding, a reflection of God's character.

(b) Ceremonial law - taught the Israelites by types and ceremonies about the Gospel. Passed away, but some moral lessons for us in it. E.g. food laws. Don't ingest spiritual filth or fellowship with those who do.

(c) Judicial or Civil Law - functioned as the body politic of the underage Church, which was constituted as a body politic (nation-state) as part of its underage tutelage. There is a moral and abiding "general equity" in these laws which has lessons for the New Covenant Church which inherits the mantle of Israel, and, more indirectly, for the mature Christian society and State. 

If you're speaking of the judicial law, the Reformed Christians who subscribe to the WCF believe in its continuing gneral equity" The beef with those Reformed Chistians who follow Bahnsen/Rushdoony/North usually identified as "theonomy" is that they take a rather wooden, biblicist and simplistic view of general equity.

The books by Christopher J.H. Wright take a much more biblical approach to Old Testament ethics and their application, pointing out that we have to understand how Holy War and the Crimes and Penalties of Moses apply to the Church - the Church being the New Covenant Israel- and then find out what we can learn about how the modern state should be run.

I'm sure that there is no doubt a pile of exegetical work to be done based on the above hermeneutic so that the mature christian Church, society and State of the future has a more nuanced, full-orbed and perfect ethic.

Personally I believe that the raft of death penalties that were added t the time of Moses are not nomative for New Testament states, whether Christian or otherwise, but that these penalties would have to be altered to prevent _mature_ Christian _societies_ being put under a typological curse that was suitable for the immature Church. but which shadows have been removed in Christ.

Once these things are recognised a Reformed approach to crime and punishment can be developed.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Aug 2, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> The books by Christopher J.H. Wright take a much more biblical approach to Old Testament ethics and their application



Though I would add that I found Wright's notion of Jesus "discerning" His own value system through His study of the Hebrew Bible perplexing.
(he says this on pp. 209-210 of _Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament_)


----------



## mvdm (Aug 2, 2010)

For some Reformed views of covenant theology, peruse this site:

The Mosaic Covenant


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 2, 2010)

kainos01 said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > The books by Christopher J.H. Wright take a much more biblical approach to Old Testament ethics and their application
> ...



I would have to find the quote to see whether it's sound or not. 

Obviously Christ learned to talk, to read, to read the Bible and learned obedience as a growing and maturing Man, without sin. The relationship between His divine nature and human nature is a deep mystery - including how His human nature could be ignorant of certain things while His divine nature knew all. As a Man Christ learned and continued to learn; but God can't learn because He is omniscient.

Now in glory His human mind is still finite (a rational soul) but He has access to all knowledge in a way He didn't in His state of humiliation.

This would be more appropriate at another thread, and this particular thread would be more appropriate in the section on the law rather than covenant theology.

When I mentioned Christopher J.H. Wright, I was thinking about His more biblical approach to applying Old Testament ethics (see his books on this) than theonomy which is crudely biblicist and doesn't seem to understand that the Church is the more direct fulfilment of Israel, whereas Christian states and nations will never be Israel, and that the laws of Moses must be more indirectly applied to them. I wasn't considering Wright's Christological details.


----------



## timmopussycat (Aug 3, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> Miller said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure I'm asking the right question but hopefully y'all will know what I mean.
> ...


 
Vanilla Westminster as described below.





Richard Tallach said:


> We take a Reformed view of the law here. The law can be divided into three sections which aren't totally watertight but are helpful:
> 
> (a) Moral law - permanent, abiding, a reflection of God's character.
> 
> ...


 
The "general equity" clause of the WCF enables the church to discern whether or not a given Mosaic punishment remains just in the New Covenant era for a particular Mosaic crime where that crime remains an offence in the NT as well. If it can be shown that the crime continues today and is not significantly affected by the change in covenants the Mosaic penalty (or one of equivalent equity), remains just.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Aug 3, 2010)

Bi-covenantal, 3-uses of the law in the covenant of grace, 3-fold division of the OT law.


----------



## Miller (Aug 3, 2010)

Thanks everyone. Now I have some resources to study up on.


----------



## johnpesebre (Aug 14, 2010)

Brenton Ferry's "Works in the Mosaic Covenant" in _The Law is Not of Faith_ (Fesko et al) provides a more comprehensive taxonomy than the nomenclature or classifications mentioned so far in this thread. A general catalog like 1) the relationship of the Mosaic Covenant to the New Covenant, 2) the relationship of the Mosaic Covenant to the Covenant of Works and 3) the organic relationship of the Mosaic covenant to the covenant of grace -- these create a huge number of positions in Reformed thought from William Perkins to Michael Horton.

The OP question


> If one is not a Klinean, Theonomist or Mono-Covenantal what other options are there?


 is too comprehensive to the point of being unhelpful.


----------

