Thread: Does Deut 28 apply to us?

Forgive me if this is an elementary question...

I've been listening to Joe Morecraft's series The Bible in Just Over a Year It's forcing me to re-examine OT Scripture that I haven't considered since beginning to embrace Reformed Theology / Covenant Theology.

Do the Blessings and Curses in Deut 28 apply to all believers NT & OT, or only ethnic OT Israel?

I know what I think but I'm waiting for the Covenant Theology "experts" to reply to this one.

I think the 'specifics' mentioned such as v8b and v68 show us that this passage is primarily directed towards OT Israel. The rest of the bible of course shows us that the principles, blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience still apply, but as a matter of bible interpretation I don't see how this particular passage has direct application outside of Israel in the land.

Originally Posted by satz

I think the 'specifics' mentioned such as v8b and v68 show us that this passage is primarily directed towards OT Israel. The rest of the bible of course shows us that the principles, blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience still apply, but as a matter of bible interpretation I don't see how this particular passage has direct application outside of Israel in the land.

That's what I was thinking. Guess I can crawl out of my hiding place now!

My bad -- technically he preaches on Deut 28:1-34 and 45-63

Morecraft says it applies to us and he uses Deut 5:2-3 and Deut 29:14-15 as some of his proofs.

Morecraft says 5:2-3 shows that the covenant is with God's people down through the ages (us), even though they were not present at Horeb and concerning 29:14-15; He takes the "whoever is not here with us today" to be ALL future believers (us).

I've never heard this before.

Originally Posted by Seb

My bad -- technically he preaches on Deut 28:1-34 and 45-63

Morecraft says it applies to us and he uses Deut 5:2-3 and Deut 29:14-15 as some of his proofs.

Morecraft says 5:2-3 shows that the covenant is with God's people down through the ages (us), even though they were not present at Horeb and concerning 29:14-15; He takes the "whoever is not here with us today" to be ALL future believers (us).

I've never heard this before.

Hmmm... could be.

It's a hermeneutical problem; an undue flattening out of the covenantal administration. We were not standing there with Israel when that covenant was made, nor was it made to those outside the theocracy as other promises within the CofG were (which is exactly why many Reformed theologians have stated that it is allowable to see aspects of a national covenant of works . There are other ways that this tendency could manifest itself in preaching, but I think that the hermeneutical principles set forth by men like Ed Clowney, Graham Goldsworthy, and others of the more sane Redemptive-Historical (or Christo-centric, as some of them would prefer to call it) school of preaching might be found by you to be a good corrective to improper application. That's not to say that there is not application to be had from those passages to the lives of believers.

Originally Posted by Seb

My bad -- technically he preaches on Deut 28:1-34 and 45-63

Morecraft says it applies to us and he uses Deut 5:2-3 and Deut 29:14-15 as some of his proofs.

Morecraft says 5:2-3 shows that the covenant is with God's people down through the ages (us), even though they were not present at Horeb and concerning 29:14-15; He takes the "whoever is not here with us today" to be ALL future believers (us).

I've never heard this before.

I would take that as all of the future Israelites whose place would be found in the theocracy governed by that administration of the covenant. I could be wrong, but that's what I would say after giving it a quick reading, banking on some of the broader contextual studies of Deuteronomy and the Mosaic-land covenant from seminary lectures as well.

The short answer is, "No." As Adam alluded to, there is always application. As a general rule, if we obey the Lord it is better for us than if we willfully disobey. But Deut. 28 is specifically about the covenant relationship between God and Israel.

Originally Posted by Seb

Forgive me if this is an elementary question...

I've been listening to Joe Morecraft's series The Bible in Just Over a Year It's forcing me to re-examine OT Scripture that I haven't considered since beginning to embrace Reformed Theology / Covenant Theology.

Do the Blessings and Curses in Deut 28 apply to all believers NT & OT, or only ethnic OT Israel?

Steve,

Reformed theology teaches that Deuteronomy 28, and its parallel in Leviticus 26 teach us the blessings and curses which may be expected in this life for people who will either obey or disobey.

The other part of the "first" use of the law is the enforcement mechanism that God builds into the law. The Canaanites were kicked out of the promised land for violating these laws, and they received the plagues and curses of disobedience. The same has happened in more modern times by the most fruitful area on earth, the "Fertile Crescent" being turned into a huge sand-dune by a bunch of wicked men.

Our Confession of Faith cites Leviticus 26 as teaching what curses God threatens upon disobedience:

and the threatenings of it [the law] serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law.[17] The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience,and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof:[18]

The passages cited for the curses and blessings are:

[17] EZR 9:13 And after all that is come upon us for our evil deeds, and for our great trespass, seeing that thou our God hast punished us less than our iniquities deserve, and hast given us such deliverance as this; 14 Should we again break thy commandments, and join in affinity with the people of these abominations? wouldest not thou be angry with us till thou hadst consumed us, so that there should be no remnant nor escaping? PSA 89:30 If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments; 31 If they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments; 32 Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes. 33 Nevertheless my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail. 34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.

[18] (LEV 26) 2CO 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. EPH 6:2 Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise) 3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. PSA 37:11 But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace. MAT 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. PSA 19:11 Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward.

Thus, the covenant enforcement mechanism established in Deuteronomy 28 and its parallel, Leviticus 26 (at least in the Reformed tradition), still apply. Note also that the Confession cites Psalm 89, which a "redemptive historical" hermeneutic might lead one to believe was exclusively about Christ, and our Confession disagrees, explicitly citing this passage as an instance of the Deuteronomy 28 curses.

One may also peruse Calvin's commentary on Deuteronomy 27-28 here:

JCCE.html

The idea that these sections of Scripture only have a limited, or personal application does not seem to be Reformed or confessional. At least if we measure such by the Westminster Confession and Calvin.

An interesting sidelight is John Winthrop's invocation of the blessings and curses during his famous "Model of Christian Charity". Time was when all American's had to know this whole speech. I think it's a must read. Enjoy:

A Model of Christian Charity --- by Gov. John Winthrop, 1630

Cheers,

1. Exegesis (including that done by older Reformed writers) that does not first take fully into account the historical situation between God and Israel before jumping directly to the application of theological paradigms shouldn't be seen as exemplary. Sometimes it should be recognized that exegetical and hermeneutical practice have made some good advances that have built upon the understanding of 16th/17th century methods. Old is usually quite good, but not necessarily above correction or improvement.

2. As noted before, well respected theologians such as Herman Witsius, Francis Turretin, and others saw a distinction to be made here, so I think that it is a bit of a stretch to say that it falls outside the pale of Reformed orthodoxy.

3. I think that you are misrepresenting the nuances of a good RH hermeneutic. Yes, the thrust of preaching on Psalm 89 will always end up with Christ and his Gospel at the center, but that does not mean that other things may not there be spoken of in the Psalm, nor that even the portions that do speak most directly to Christ and his work would therefore be unable to give us further illustration or thought on broader issues.

Oh yes, I forgot to mention, I wouldn't trust any editing job on Calvin's sermons that was done by a theonomist with the specific intent of proving that Calvin himself was in fact a theonomist. That includes the prefatory material and its interpretation of the sermons. Scholarship that is driven by such an agenda is usually to be read with a critical eye.

Originally Posted by Archlute

Oh yes, I forgot to mention, I wouldn't trust any editing job on Calvin's sermons that was done by a theonomist with the specific intent of proving that Calvin himself was in fact a theonomist. That includes the prefatory material and its interpretation of the sermons. Scholarship that is driven by such an agenda is usually to be read with a critical eye.

Just so you know, Jordan's editing of Calvin's Deuteronomy Sermons is listed as Beeke's #1 commentary on Deuteronomy. So it is a bit harder to cast doubt on the work in general without actual claims against it.

CT

Is it an over-simplification to say that the passages are directed toward a specific covenant God made with (ethnic) Israel but the principles contained therein have application to us today?

Would covenant theology say that generally promises made to God's people Israel in the Old Testament carry forward in principle and are therefore relevant to God's people (Jew and Gentile) today?

Another question: Could we say that the promises given to Israel in these passages were somehow fulfilled in Christ? If so, does that include the curses promised for disobedience?

Could Deut. 28 be applied to the United States? Is the US. the covenant nation of God? There are certainly principles in that passage that show that any nation who thumbs its nose at God and goes into idolatry will be judged.
Here is a passage that could most certainly be applied to the U.S. as well as any other nation:
Jer 18:7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
Jer 18:8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
Jer 18:9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
Jer 18:10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

Originally Posted by Scott1

Is it an over-simplification to say that the passages are directed toward a specific covenant God made with (ethnic) Israel but the principles contained therein have application to us today?

Would covenant theology say that generally promises made to God's people Israel in the Old Testament carry forward in principle and are therefore relevant to God's people (Jew and Gentile) today?

I think, at present, that this is the right way of looking at this. Deut 26 and 27 tell us that the context of these promises was Moses telling Israel how they should live upon entering the physical promised land of Canaan.

While many things in the OT are still applicable to christians today, the NT rejects things that are specifically jewish, and the land is certainly one such thing.

As such, I do not believe that Deut 28 is directly applicable to christians living today, nor indeed was it ever applicable to anyone outside of the specific nation of OT Israel.

The principles still apply, because the character of God is such that he rewards obedience and punishes disobedience, both individually and corporately. However, as a matter of correct bible interpretion, I do not think it is right to say Deut 28 is applicable to us today (although it can teach us principles about God and obedience).

My , open to correction.

So to recap, I'm bumping into a question that has a different answer depending on one's embracing of a "theonomic" worldview?

I haven't spent time studying "Christian Theonomy" yet (it's on a LONG list of things yet to study)

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Originally Posted by Archlute

Oh yes, I forgot to mention, I wouldn't trust any editing job on Calvin's sermons that was done by a theonomist with the specific intent of proving that Calvin himself was in fact a theonomist. That includes the prefatory material and its interpretation of the sermons. Scholarship that is driven by such an agenda is usually to be read with a critical eye.

Just so you know, Jordan's editing of Calvin's Deuteronomy Sermons is listed as Beeke's #1 commentary on Deuteronomy. So it is a bit harder to cast doubt on the work in general without actual claims against it.

CT

Fine, but having skimmed the longish introduction where Jordan tries to make his case is already a strike against it for me. Whether or not Beeke lists it as his number one choice as a commentary is irrelevant. I'd like to see where he does that anyway, since the work is no commentary in the true sense whatsoever, but rather a reprinting of Calvin's sermons with prefatory material added by a theonomist. If Beeke actually lists it as his #1 commentary, as you claim, I'd have to say that's a pretty poor choice, since it technically is not a commentary. Put up a link or something.

Originally Posted by Blueridge Believer

Could Deut. 28 be applied to the United States? Is the US. the covenant nation of God? There are certainly principles in that passage that show that any nation who thumbs its nose at God and goes into idolatry will be judged.
Here is a passage that could most certainly be applied to the U.S. as well as any other nation:
Jer 18:7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
Jer 18:8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
Jer 18:9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
Jer 18:10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

I would agree with what Mark said above. We can gain an understanding of God's moral character from passages such as this, but God (as far as I know, maybe I missed it in Revelation somewhere ) has never made a covenant with the U.S. as his special people with land promises. Those things were typological, and have been fulfilled in Christ as we await his return/our death, and the receiving of the heavenly land of promise that his perfect keeping of the law has procured for his redeemed people.

Originally Posted by Archlute

Fine, but having skimmed the longish introduction where Jordan tries to make his case is already a strike against it for me. Whether or not Beeke lists it as his number one choice as a commentary is irrelevant. I'd like to see where he does that anyway, since the work is no commentary in the true sense whatsoever, but rather a reprinting of Calvin's sermons with prefatory material added by a theonomist. If Beeke actually lists it as his #1 commentary, as you claim, I'd have to say that's a pretty poor choice, since it technically is not a commentary. Put up a link or something.

Adam,

Calvin's material speaks for itself, and the argument that someone wrote a preface with whom you disagree does not really say much against what Calvin actually stated in his sermons. Rather, it says that your prejudice is so strong that you are unwilling to take Calvin's socio-political thought even handedly.

You can skip the preface, but don't skip the message.

Cheers,

Originally Posted by Blueridge Believer

Could Deut. 28 be applied to the United States? Is the US. the covenant nation of God? There are certainly principles in that passage that show that any nation who thumbs its nose at God and goes into idolatry will be judged.
Here is a passage that could most certainly be applied to the U.S. as well as any other nation:
Jer 18:7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
Jer 18:8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
Jer 18:9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
Jer 18:10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

Blueridge,

God never made a covenant with America; rather, God's covenant is intended to be brough to all nations, not just Israel any more. This is a major theme in the minor prophets, in Isaiah, and in the New Testament: "Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations."

The reality that America is experiencing the plagues of Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26 does not depend on a specifically "Amero/Israel" ideology, it simply requires that one understand the shift from OT to NT is not one that casts out the civil in favor of the personal, but one that casts out the one nation to include all nations.

Cheers,

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Originally Posted by Blueridge Believer

Could Deut. 28 be applied to the United States? Is the US. the covenant nation of God? There are certainly principles in that passage that show that any nation who thumbs its nose at God and goes into idolatry will be judged.
Here is a passage that could most certainly be applied to the U.S. as well as any other nation:
Jer 18:7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
Jer 18:8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
Jer 18:9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
Jer 18:10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

Blueridge,

God never made a covenant with America; rather, God's covenant is intended to be brough to all nations, not just Israel any more. This is a major theme in the minor prophets, in Isaiah, and in the New Testament: "Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations."

The reality that America is experiencing the plagues of Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26 does not depend on a specifically "Amero/Israel" ideology, it simply requires that one understand the shift from OT to NT is not one that casts out the civil in favor of the personal, but one that casts out the one nation to include all nations.

Cheers,

I'm sorry brother. I didn't mean to give the impression I though the US was a covenant nation, just brought the passage out of Jer. to show judgement on all nations.

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Originally Posted by Archlute

Fine, but having skimmed the longish introduction where Jordan tries to make his case is already a strike against it for me. Whether or not Beeke lists it as his number one choice as a commentary is irrelevant. I'd like to see where he does that anyway, since the work is no commentary in the true sense whatsoever, but rather a reprinting of Calvin's sermons with prefatory material added by a theonomist. If Beeke actually lists it as his #1 commentary, as you claim, I'd have to say that's a pretty poor choice, since it technically is not a commentary. Put up a link or something.

Adam,

Calvin's material speaks for itself, and the argument that someone wrote a preface with whom you disagree does not really say much against what Calvin actually stated in his sermons. Rather, it says that your prejudice is so strong that you are unwilling to take Calvin's socio-political thought even handedly.

You can skip the preface, but don't skip the message.

Cheers,

Whether or not James Jordan's attempts to read the modern theonomic agenda into Calvin's thought, or your apparent approval of that reading, is accurate or not is beyond the level of scholarship and debate that could profitably take place on a forum like the PB. However, even if it could be proved that Jordan's reading is correct, that really doesn't mean very much. I think that Calvin gets other things wrong in his preaching (such as in his sermons on Micah), and often times in his concern to correct the social-ecclesiastical problems of his day his sermons end up missing the Gospel altogether, which is what "ministers of the Gospel" are called to preach, as Christ's ambassadors.

Did Calvin believe that he had a reason for preaching these sermons as he did? Sure. Were there significant social corruptions going on in Geneva at the time? Sure. But does that mean that we are obliged to follow his interpretations on every passage, or to refrain from disagreeing with his homiletic procedure? No. If that were the case, then Calvin would just be the Protestant version of the Papal Magisterium.

I still doubt that Jordan was reading him right. I've read most of Calvin's sermons on Micah, and a handful from his preaching in Deuteronomy, and although Calvin seeks change in the unjust practices of the merchants, and to stem the corrupting influence of the brothels and such, his version of social change through the preaching of the Scriptures, and the theonomic version of the same through the enforcement of theocratic law are two very, very different foundations.

Here's a slightly different slant: of course it applies to us! All scripture is inspired and useful.... even without delving into the covenant nature of this passage, I think we need to be careful to acknowledge that this is God's word and has use for us, even if something proves to be applicable to a specific nation in a specific time and place.

Originally Posted by Seb

Forgive me if this is an elementary question...



Do the Blessings and Curses in Deut 28 apply to all believers NT & OT, or only ethnic OT Israel?

It does apply to us. The only thing that changed from the Old Testament to the New Testament are the cermeonial laws and the sacrificial system which were all fulfilled in Christ. The ethical requirements, and stipulations with their relative penalties still remain in force.

Proof.

All men and nations implicitly fall under the covenant since they descended from Adam. This is so whether they know about it or not or whether they acknowledge it or not.

1.God destroyed the antediluvian world with a flood because of their wickedness.
2. God judged Sodom and Gomorrah because of their abominations.
3. God judged Egypt with plagues because of Pharaoh's and the nations disobedience.
4. God judged the Canaanites, Amorites, Amalekites and the Hittites because of their abominations.

In none of the above cases did God explicitly made a covenant with them, but it was understood that the broke the laws of some covenant. Israel got the Covenant and the laws explicitly codified to them because God was gracious to them. He didn't allow them to wander in ignorance and to be cut off like the heathens.

5. God sent Jonah to Nineveh to urge them to repent. If Jonah didn't go they still would have been judged.
6. God judged Babylon because of their wickedness.
7. God judged the Persians and the Greeks.
8. God judged the Israelites again in A.D 70.
9. Then He went on to judge the Romans.
10. And wicked nations continue to be judged to this day. Just look around.
11. For a closer look, look at wall street where whole companies have been dissolved because of greedy executives. Look at the greedy homeowners who have their houses foreclosed on. Look at the woman who committed abortion that ends up in the psychiatric ward and driven to suicide, look at the homosexual that contracts AIDS, look at the career woman that reached her 40's and is rich, childless and miserable. Look at whole nations in Africa that were committed to communism now totally bankrupt, impoverished and corrupt. Look at the middle east as the wallow in the idolatry of Islam which manifests itself in suicide bombings, honor killings of their own daughters and economic stagnation. Look at China, the godless statist country that imposed 1 child per couple policy leading them to abort subsequent children. Look at how they constantly suffer the blight of earthquakes, and floodings which claim the lives of 1000's, not 100's or scores as the U.S tragedies.

Jesus came to fulfill the law not to abrogate it. His fulfillment came in keeping the law and offering the perfect sacrifice so that the breakers of the law who repent can be justified. To say that God's revealed law and its stipulations and sanctions are no longer binding to individuals and nations is to say that Christ came only to give individuals and nations a license to sin.

Keon,

I think that a number of things in your post don't follow. I would ask you this however, you mention the fulfillment of the ceremonial law (of which the sacrificial system was a part), but you do not mention the civil/judicial law. Reformed theology in general, along with the WCF 19.4 holds that this has been abrogated with the termination of the theocracy. Would you agree with that as well?

If so, then you will have to deal with this particular historic covenant and its stipulations on the level of a theocratic covenant, and those issues (along with the keeping or losing of the promised land based on the obedience of the nation) do not all just straight across apply to all peoples and nations without certain qualifications.

Nobody is trying to deny the universal applicability of the Covenant of Works on those who remain outside of Christ (unless, of course, one is a mono-covenantalist, who would deny the concept of a distinct Covenant of Works anyway, to say nothing of the Covenant of Redemption). However, there is an historic situatedness about the Mosaic Covenant that does not allow it to be unilaterally applied to every nation as it was applied to that of the nation of Israel.

I really appreciate all the answers. It's all a lot for a simple guy like myself to digest.

I'm sorry guys, I really didn't realize I was bringing up a topic that was so complicated and somewhat divisive.

Maybe we should discuss something simple and unifying like baptism instead.

Originally Posted by Seb

I really appreciate all the answers. It's all a lot for a simple guy like myself to digest.

I'm sorry guys, I really didn't realize I was bringing up a topic that was so complicated and somewhat divisive.

Maybe we should discuss something simple and unifying like baptism instead.

Right! Or Clark and Van Til? Or maybe the sabbath? Or how 'bout church government?

Originally Posted by Archlute

Keon,

I think that a number of things in your post don't follow. I would ask you this however, you mention the fulfillment of the ceremonial law (of which the sacrificial system was a part), but you do not mention the civil/judicial law. Reformed theology in general, along with the WCF 19.4 holds that this has been abrogated with the termination of the theocracy. Would you agree with that as well?

If so, then you will have to deal with this particular historic covenant and its stipulations on the level of a theocratic covenant, and those issues (along with the keeping or losing of the promised land based on the obedience of the nation) do not all just straight across apply to all peoples and nations without certain qualifications.

Nobody is trying to deny the universal applicability of the Covenant of Works on those who remain outside of Christ (unless, of course, one is a mono-covenantalist, who would deny the concept of a distinct Covenant of Works anyway, to say nothing of the Covenant of Redemption). However, there is an historic situatedness about the Mosaic Covenant that does not allow it to be unilaterally applied to every nation as it was applied to that of the nation of Israel.

1. The Mosaic Law is the Covenant of Works perfectly codified. Before Adam sinned he kept the law perfectly. The ceremonial aspects were not needed because he had not sinned.
2. Sinning brings the necessity of the ceremonial aspects which points to Christ.
3. Sinning brings the necessity of a perfect substitutive sacrifice.

It is great error when one assumes that the Covenant of Works and the Mosaic Covenant are separate. They are distinct but definitely not separate. The Mosaic Law is the Covenant of Works with the sacrificial system that prefigures Christ. The sacrificial system is nothing more than God's grace for Covenant breakers who repent in the Old Testament. He that is whole does not need a physician

As for how this relates to the WCF that is a can of worms you are opening up that I don't want to touch, but let us remember the WCF plainly said, "Abrogated except the general equity thereof". General Equity would be a contradiction if you assume Abrogated as used by the divines means totally nullified in its entirety. The Puritans is the shining example of what abrogation vs general equity means. (Stoning a murder is not necessary if you don't have stones nearby, you can hang him)

Originally Posted by Anton Bruckner

General Equity would be a contradiction if you assume Abrogated as used by the divines means totally nullified in its entirety. The Puritans is the shining example of what abrogation vs general equity means. (Stoning a murder is not necessary if you don't have stones nearby, you can hang him)

This point gets close to some questions I have about theonomy (I'm new to the subject). For nontheonomists who hold that the judicial laws have expired, would you say that the penalties for breaking the judicial laws are not to be considered a part of the moral content of those laws so that civil magistrates today cannot properly base penalties for crimes on the penalties found in the OT?

My question for theonomists here is, since we're responsible for every jot and tittle of OT law, does this mean that we ought to stone people guilty of capital offenses or is lethal injection okay? How do you determine what parts to follow and what parts are circumstantial to Israel?

Originally Posted by Neopatriarch

Originally Posted by Anton Bruckner

General Equity would be a contradiction if you assume Abrogated as used by the divines means totally nullified in its entirety. The Puritans is the shining example of what abrogation vs general equity means. (Stoning a murder is not necessary if you don't have stones nearby, you can hang him)

This point gets close to some questions I have about theonomy (I'm new to the subject). For nontheonomists who hold that the judicial laws have expired, would you say that the penalties for breaking the judicial laws are not to be considered a part of the moral content of those laws so that civil magistrates today cannot properly base penalties for crimes on the penalties found in the OT?

My question for theonomists here is, since we're responsible for every jot and tittle of OT law, does this mean that we ought to stone people guilty of capital offenses or is lethal injection okay? How do you determine what parts to follow and what parts are circumstantial to Israel?

Good questions!

Well, penalties are not moral, they are "penal". Penalties, in and of themselves cannot be considered moral, except in how they are applied. You can have justly applied or unjustly applied penalties, but the disciplinary action itself is without inherent morality.

Originally Posted by Archlute

Whether or not James Jordan's attempts to read the modern theonomic agenda into Calvin's thought, or your apparent approval of that reading, is accurate or not is beyond the level of scholarship and debate that could profitably take place on a forum like the PB. However, even if it could be proved that Jordan's reading is correct, that really doesn't mean very much. I think that Calvin gets other things wrong in his preaching (such as in his sermons on Micah), and often times in his concern to correct the social-ecclesiastical problems of his day his sermons end up missing the Gospel altogether, which is what "ministers of the Gospel" are called to preach, as Christ's ambassadors.

Did Calvin believe that he had a reason for preaching these sermons as he did? Sure. Were there significant social corruptions going on in Geneva at the time? Sure. But does that mean that we are obliged to follow his interpretations on every passage, or to refrain from disagreeing with his homiletic procedure? No. If that were the case, then Calvin would just be the Protestant version of the Papal Magisterium.

I still doubt that Jordan was reading him right. I've read most of Calvin's sermons on Micah, and a handful from his preaching in Deuteronomy, and although Calvin seeks change in the unjust practices of the merchants, and to stem the corrupting influence of the brothels and such, his version of social change through the preaching of the Scriptures, and the theonomic version of the same through the enforcement of theocratic law are two very, very different foundations.

Adam,

Thank you for your thoughts. As you will note in my original post on this thread, I stated:

The idea that these sections of Scripture only have a limited, or personal application does not seem to be Reformed or confessional. At least if we measure such by the Westminster Confession and Calvin.

Therefore, the scope of my statement was limited to two sources, one of which you have yet to interact with.

The OP is about the applicability of the blessings and curses. Calvin and the Westminster standards accept these as normative for all nations. You (presumably) do not. To that degree, your interpretation is out of accord with the sources I cited, including Winthrop. That's all I was getting at.

Also, conceding the applicability of Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26 to modern day nations and the applicability of the judicials are two separate (albeit related) issues, and should not be confused. My point was that the first use of the law is complemented by the blessings and curses. Although this is a basic point in modern theonomist thought, it is only because it is basic to Calvin and the Westminster Standards' thought.

As for Calvin not "preaching the gospel", I'm not sure what you're getting at. There are many men whom I could think of in Scripture who preached on such subjects as Calvin did, and yet were still preaching the gospel of Christ. For instance, Jesus, who taught the execution of those who curse their father or mother, or Paul who taught the Romans about the magistrate's duty to punish evil and praise those that do well. Then there is Moses who preached the gospel of Christ, and taught the civil justice that God demands among men.

The setting of enforcement of civil sanctions against preaching of scripture is like saying that if a man preaches against adultery, he's failed to "preach the gospel". Your concern for preaching the gospel is good, and right. However, if that means that a preacher may not follow the example of Paul, or Jesus, or Moses, or Elijah, or Amos, etc. then I think your zeal may be blameworthy.

Theonomists do not make "preaching of the Scriptures" and "the enforcement of theocratic law" as two mutually exclusive foundations. Rather, both are built on one foundation: Jesus Christ. Each man is taught by the church how to reform, according to his personal station. If the tradesman, husband, and father, he is taught how to glorify Christ in his trade, his marriage and his fatherhood. If a pastor to Christ flock, he is taught how to glorify Christ in being "a fisher of men" etc. If one who governs, he is taught how to glorify Christ in his government. To say that preaching of the Scriptures is somehow contrary to God ruling over all nations is... well... unscriptural. Christ is King of kings, and Lord of lords. This is all that theonomists argue, and it is the teaching of the system of doctrine drawn up by the Assembly of Divines.

Anywho, just some thoughts. Thanks for the interaction!

Thanks for your thoughts as well, Adam.

At this point I don't feel it a fruitful use of my time to go around in circles on several things that seem not to be sticking, nor do I feel I have the time to get into definitions of preaching, and an evaluation of Calvin's sermons. There is a whole lot of material at the seminary level that would help in fleshing out and discussing these issues further, but I figure that instead of rewriting and discussing three years of applicable lecture notes, I'll just leave the discussion as is, and make better use of my time in actually carrying out the work of the ministry where I have been placed.

I will not be able to change your mind within one thread regarding material that takes some people months to grasp fully. Applied theology, and all the related disciplines that go into making it work, is both a pretty broad and detailed topic. I'll just say that Morecraft fails to get the understanding and application of that passage correct, on at least the point under discussion. I think that any number of reliable homiletic profs would be in agreement with me. In the tradition of the "Clowney Diagram", when preaching moves directly from OT principle to personal application w/o getting first to the elements of fulfillment in Christ (and only then to its application in the life of a believer) it is labeled as moralism. Just as moving straight from the OT event to application, bypassing both OT principle and fulfillment in Christ, would receive the label of allegory.

You might try reading some works by Clowney, Goldsworthy, Johnson, and a few others on why we preach this way. You may find yourself understanding things in a different light, and I doubt that you would call it unconfessional. I didn't hear anyone saying anything of the sort about Clowney's teaching or ministerial fruitfulness either before or after his passing. I think I'll hang with my profs on this one. They always seemed to do a pretty good job of preaching the OT when I was around.

Seriously though, you should at least read through a copy of Dennis Johnson's Him We Proclaim: Preaching Christ in all of the Scriptures. I think you'd find it a good read, even if you were personally to come away still being unconvinced on a point or two.

Something I had been wondering about of late, if a reformed person wants to go back and apply the laws of Deuteronomy to us today and not take hermeneutics and historical perspective into account how is this any different than the people who want to say miracles, healing, tongues, spiritual gifts etc. still apply to us today because they read of these things happening in the NT?

Shouldn't historical and cultural perspective and hermeneutics be taken into account in both instances?

Originally Posted by Archlute

Well, penalties are not moral, they are "penal". Penalties, in and of themselves cannot be considered moral, except in how they are applied. You can have justly applied or unjustly applied penalties, but the disciplinary action itself is without inherent morality.

Certainly the punishment should fit the crime. Perhaps I should be asking whether or not the judicial law's prescription of death for murderers is part of the moral content of the judicial law or is a slap on the wrist okay? Can the judicial laws teach us which penalties are right to apply to particular crimes?

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Originally Posted by Blueridge Believer

Could Deut. 28 be applied to the United States? Is the US. the covenant nation of God? There are certainly principles in that passage that show that any nation who thumbs its nose at God and goes into idolatry will be judged.
Here is a passage that could most certainly be applied to the U.S. as well as any other nation:
Jer 18:7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
Jer 18:8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
Jer 18:9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
Jer 18:10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

Blueridge,

God never made a covenant with America; rather, God's covenant is intended to be brough to all nations, not just Israel any more. This is a major theme in the minor prophets, in Isaiah, and in the New Testament: "Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations."

The reality that America is experiencing the plagues of Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26 does not depend on a specifically "Amero/Israel" ideology, it simply requires that one understand the shift from OT to NT is not one that casts out the civil in favor of the personal, but one that casts out the one nation to include all nations.

Cheers,

Not even Bahnsen fell into the trap of suggesting that the reason OT stipulations carried over was that they remained coovenantally valid in the NT era. Had he done so he would have been in Galatianism. Bahnsen's arguments for NT validity of OT judicials were a) all must remain valid unless amended by the lawgiver in the NT and b) the judicials are included in the moral law and thus transcend the Sinai covenant.

From God's history of dealing with nations not in covenant with him, one may argue, I think correctly, that the character of God is such that he is free to and may, at any time he pleases, impose judgments on nations that turn from him, whether or not those nations are officially in covenant with him.

ISTM there is cause for a widespread call to Christians to pray and fast, not only for the crisis, but for our powerlessness in evangelism over the last 70 years which has led to it. The most disquieting thing about the present crises is that I have seen only one call for Christians to pray and fast in the moment and that if I remember correctly was issued by a layman on a discusion board not a politician or major Christian leader. In older days politicians would have made such a call without thinking about it; today I have not heard of any significant voice in evangelicalism make such a call.

Originally Posted by shackleton

Something I had been wondering about of late, if a reformed person wants to go back and apply the laws of Deuteronomy to us today and not take hermeneutics and historical perspective into account how is this any different than the people who want to say miracles, healing, tongues, spiritual gifts etc. still apply to us today because they read of these things happening in the NT?

Shouldn't historical and cultural perspective and hermeneutics be taken into account in both instances?

Yes, historical and cultural perspective and hermeneutics ought to be taken into account when applying Mosaic judicial stipulations to situatons outside the Mosaic covenant. In section 19:4 of the WCF, the Westminster Divines have given us a method of doing so that has yet to be surpassed. That section says 2 things. First, none of the laws remain covenantally valid "they have expired together with the state of [the Jews] and second, in the words"not obliging any other now further than general equity may require" the Divines provided an applicability test that each law must pass before we institute it today: we must demonstrate the contemporary validity of any law we believe applicable today by showing that it remains just despite the differing relationships between God and man that are found outside Sinai.

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Originally Posted by Archlute

Fine, but having skimmed the longish introduction where Jordan tries to make his case is already a strike against it for me. Whether or not Beeke lists it as his number one choice as a commentary is irrelevant. I'd like to see where he does that anyway, since the work is no commentary in the true sense whatsoever, but rather a reprinting of Calvin's sermons with prefatory material added by a theonomist. If Beeke actually lists it as his #1 commentary, as you claim, I'd have to say that's a pretty poor choice, since it technically is not a commentary. Put up a link or something.

Adam,

Calvin's material speaks for itself, and the argument that someone wrote a preface with whom you disagree does not really say much against what Calvin actually stated in his sermons. Rather, it says that your prejudice is so strong that you are unwilling to take Calvin's socio-political thought even handedly.

You can skip the preface, but don't skip the message.

Cheers,

Did Jordan just write the preface or did he also translate Calvin's sermons as has been mentioned in another thread here? If Jordan translated the sermons, I would be careful.
For it is certain that while Calvin believed with modern Theonomists that many Mosaic judicials were applicable today, it is equally certain he had a different hermeneutic than Bahnsen to justify his belief. These differences in hermeneutics lead to differences over which laws should apply today. These differences are evident in book iv chaper 20 pp. 14-16 of Institutes published before Calvin preached on Deuteronomy and it remains present in his Commentary on the Four Last Books of Moses, written and published after Calvin preached on Deuteronomy.

So if Jordan did translate these sermons, I would check any points where it appears Calvin has adopted Bahnsen's Theonomic hermeutic against the earlier translation which is I believe is available online.