Should Christians Implement the Mosaic Law When in Government?

I imagine if “Theonomy” were to be defined as “the belief that if Christians are in power, they ought to use God’s Word to guide them in the construction of laws,” then I would be a Theonomist. Surely, the divine revelation should guide all law, but it is the whole of that revelation, taking into consideration the intent of God with the law for the unbeliever and believer, the gospel mission of the church, and the theology of Scripture concerning the depravity of man in light of all of that. In my opinion, some theories of theonomy, perhaps the most prominent ones that I have heard from people, fail to do this.

Instead, there seems to be a recurring argument about the Mosaic law code specifically that is used by the Theonomists of that variety, and it goes something like this: “God’s law is the highest and most perfect law. Hence, we should use God’s law as human laws because they are divinely inspired and perfect, whereas man-made laws are imperfect and may not capture the perfection of God’s.” 

The problem with this argument is not that I don’t agree with the statement that God’s law is the highest and most perfect law, but that I do agree with it, and that is the problem with the system.

I don’t say this to be demeaning, but I do really have to wonder if people who make this argument have every thoroughly read the whole Mosaic law, and what imposing it on unbelievers would essentially mean. 

Of course, there is the distinction between civil, moral, and ceremonial that is thought to help with this, but I would argue that it actually does not help all that much if the law is understood.

The civil law is not something different than the moral law. All are meant to be used to worship YHWH. In fact, this is what distinguishes the civil law in the Mosaic law code from the almost identical civil laws in other law codes like Lipit-Ishtar, Eshnunna, Hammurapi, etc. It is not that the laws are that different, but that they are to be used as worship of YHWH. When not used this way, one is not obeying them. And although one could argue that this is an unseen use of the law, it is not an unseen use when the person is known to be an unbeliever.

On top of this, explicit civil laws that would kill anyone who worships another god in its many forms, does not observe the Sabbath, etc. make it clear that any unbeliever is to be put to death. What this would mean is that all of the unbelievers would either be forced to lie, and thus, ironically, break the law, or if found out, executed. This would not be an implementation of the law over unbelievers, but simply an extermination of all unbelievers.

But this does not take the purpose of the law for unbelievers into consideration. God’s law to unbelievers is to convict them so that they repent and believe the gospel; but this treatment of the law would destroy all unbelievers before they got to chance, or it would simply create a society where the Inquisition reigns. In reality, this use of the law is in the way of the gospel and the mission of the church. The mission of the church is to save lives, but the law’s purpose is to kill the unbeliever/the agent of chaos and remove him from the land of the living. If it is implemented over the whole of society, and eventually, over the whole earth, there will be no unbelievers left to evangelize. It will also turn Christianity into a religion like Islam in that it advances itself through the literal sword rather than the Word.

Anyone who worships another god (Ex 22:20; also Ex 20:4;Deut 17:2-7), blasphemes God (Lev 24:16), anyone who gives a false prophecy, which would be anyone who adhered to any other religion on the planet (Deut 13:1-15; 18:20), etc.

Now, one can pick all of these out, or even remove the intent of the law to worship YHWH alone, all together, but I thought the entire argument was that God’s law was perfect and did not need to be altered either in its descriptions of crimes or its punishments. That would include not only that the intent of the law is to be used for worship of YHWH, but also the idea that no civil law can be removed from it, and these laws are civil laws with civil punishments of execution. 

For instance, Joel McDurmon attempts to argue that only some of the Mosaic civil laws are binding, precisely, because it would create an obvious problem if all were. He defines Theonomy as follows:

"Theonomy is the biblical teaching that Mosaic law contains perpetual moral standards for living, including some civil laws, which remain obligatory for today.

This makes it clear up front that Theonomy is 1) about moral standards for living, not justification or salvation, 2) includes, but is not limited to, civil government, and 3) involves only some, not all, of Mosaic law."

This is far more agreeable, but the problem is that it fails to note the purpose of the whole law, and even the individual laws as worship of YHWH, not as merely secular laws to follow. Otherwise, we are just saying that, in so far as, the Mosaic law contains certain laws of physical preservation that mimic the law codes in other nations, we should implement them; but this is a far cry from the argument that is often made concerning God's law being perfect. If it is perfect, then all of the laws should be implemented, including their specific intent in the Mosaic law code.

The truth of the matter is that God did not set the Mosaic law over all of the nations, but rather put a law of minimal order in their hearts for the purpose of their physical preservation, so that they would be preserved for a time to hear the gospel and all the nations would be saved. 

Hence, there is a lot of overlap between those natural laws and God’s law expressed through Moses, but they do not include the worship of Him and the observing of His specific religion for the precise purpose of saving mankind rather than immediately destroying them. God did enact His law upon humanity once in the flood. That was something that He did not wish to do again until the end because humans are evil from their youth and would have to be destroyed before God could save many of them.

What we would need to set up as Christians in government is a law like the ones God set up over the nations He desired to save, not a law like the Mosaic law code that actually kills even all of Israel without the gospel.

And who would be the perfect executioner and judge of the law, but God, who can see how every man does not obey it in his thoughts and secret actions? But He does not enforce it over mankind for the purpose of saving mankind. If God does not do this, therefore, why would we?

Instead, a Christian government should make a clear path for the mission of the Christian Church, and not get in its way. This means that a Christian government would NOT implement the Mosaic law code as their law. Hence, the argument often used to establish this kind of theonomy is actually an argument for why it should not be established.