Of course, by Torah we mean after Christ, apart from works of Torah. I am saying that seeing the “Law” as Torah and not theonomy provides a better model for understanding Scripture. Theonomy runs into difficulties because it assumes the legal categories of late Western modernity. That’s not necessarily its fault. Everyone has to apply the word in the culture he lives in. But a quick perusal of the Pentateuch will show that it was not written with late Western modernity in mind. In fact, seen in our categories, much of it is quite bizarre.
That’s not to deny its importance. If anything, the strange ways in which Torah is organized should invite the reader to reflect even deeper about reality and the way that God’s world works. Let’s consider a few and ask how these can possibly work on the theonomic thesis:
- While there are covenantal-sequential patterns and typological motifs (riffing off of the days of creation–Ex. 25-40), many of the laws are apparently haphazardly organized together. This should alert us to the fact that maybe God didn’t intend for these laws to be understood in a post-common law framework.
- If you find a bird’s nest on the ground, you are given certain commands on how you can gather the eggs. Is anyone in the modern Western world really going to do this? Is this law judicial or moral or both?
- Torah is also story. In Paul’s use of Abraham in Romans Torah is not functioning as a list of dos and don’ts, but as story. How do you put story into a law code?