Although the “theonomy” debate has largely subsided, it continues to be espoused by a vocal minority because it was never properly addressed. The key issue is not whether the judicial laws are still binding. These laws are grounded in God’s moral character; hence, they are still binding. But since they were enforced by magistrates who worked in conjunction with Levitical priests in the context of a now-defunct priesthood, today’s magistrates would lack the divine guidance and authority to enforce the judicial laws as was once prescribed. A conceptual distinction should therefore be drawn between moral/judicial laws and their legal enforcement in society.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 285 | 85 | 11 |
Full Text Views | 24 | 7 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 62 | 12 | 0 |
Although the “theonomy” debate has largely subsided, it continues to be espoused by a vocal minority because it was never properly addressed. The key issue is not whether the judicial laws are still binding. These laws are grounded in God’s moral character; hence, they are still binding. But since they were enforced by magistrates who worked in conjunction with Levitical priests in the context of a now-defunct priesthood, today’s magistrates would lack the divine guidance and authority to enforce the judicial laws as was once prescribed. A conceptual distinction should therefore be drawn between moral/judicial laws and their legal enforcement in society.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 285 | 85 | 11 |
Full Text Views | 24 | 7 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 62 | 12 | 0 |