What Does Mike Winger Think About Theonomy? | with  

Great conversation, it's obvious that this is an area that many Christians have not really thought through, Mike seems to be in that position (no disrespect to Mike, I highly respect him). It seems the part that is hard to understand for many is that Christ is head over all governments so if we say that governments should rule according to God's law, it doesn't require the Church to be over government because both the Church and the state are both under Christ's rule. Essentially, do we really believe that as the great commission is being fulfilled and people are saved, believers are not to desire for the government to rule according to God's law instead of pagan law?

"There is no such thing as neutrality. It is not whether, but which." Love the clarity!

I am Reformed and I listen to Mike’s Tuesday Q&A live streams on the regular. I have learned so much from him. This conversation was fascinating because I never have understood Theonomy…heard the word but did not understand.

Literally just finished explaining to my husband that you remind me of a Reformed Mike Winger. Then this video popped up!

I love Mike Winger, keep up the dialogue. Iron sharpens iron.

Great to see 2 brothers with very different theological positions speaking so well with each other. It's the one thing I've noticed about the postmillenial group...they seem to be the few reformed people that dialogue with non calvinists, which I really appreciate.

This conversation is so good. So encouraging to see such charity of thought and doctrine between brothers.

Thank you brother! I love to see a conversation where both sides are just hearing and clarifying questions. Nobody gave up their grounds but seeds of truth were exchanged and the Spirit will move, but the body was maintained and unity wasn't destroyed. Excellent example of how to talk to brothers that don't hold all the same beliefs we do.

This was great. I honestly thought I would side more with Pastor Mike. But I think Pastor Joel made some very good points. This just means I need to study more. Thanks Pastor Mike and Pastor Joel.

This is a really great conversation. Both of them did a great job of working on getting to understand the other person's position. I benefited greatly.

There will always be sincere and reasonable disagreements between believers about what the general equity is of any given biblical law and what should be legislated accordingly. Theonomy merely asserts that the legislations believers advocate for should be rooted in recognition of the abiding validity of all scripture (including not just the moral law, but also the ceremonial and civil law) and that individual believer’s best understanding of the general equity of the relevant passages. Agreement on the general equity extracted is not necessary, but agreement that the general equity is binding is necessary.

Love both of these men of God. Over the years Pastor Mike's teachings have helped in applying God's Word to rule over my heart and mind. More recently, Pastor Joel's teaching have helped in applying God's Word in all other areas of life. Both are invaluable to the body of Christ

54:58 was the best part! Exactly what I was thinking in that moment but Joel said it so well and with such great timing! Thanks for the conversation. I’ve watched both of you for years. Hope to see more of this in the future. Blessings!

Teach me, O LORD, the way of your statutes, and I shall observe it to the end. Give me understanding, that I may observe Your law and keep it with all my heart. Make me walk in the path of Your commandments, for I delight in it. Incline my heart to Your testimonies and not to dishonest gain. Turn away my eyes from looking at vanity, and revive me in Your ways. Establish Your word to Your servant, as that which produces reverence for You. Turn away my reproach which I dread, for Your ordinances are good. Psalm 119:33-39 NASB

That was a very enjoyable and charitable conversation to listen to between two brothers… very well done Joel! And thanks also to Mike for asking good questions and providing some great push back as well. I do hope that he does find time sometime in the future to look more into it… and it would be cool to see a follow up sometime after that. For me, PostMil and Theonomy have been really helpful in sharpening a lot of my understanding of Scripture and its application to culture today. Definitely a worthwhile consideration - if even just to help sharpen your thoughts on these matters. Bahnsen, North, DeMar, Wilson, and Rushdoony have been really great “conversation partners” for me through their books.

There is one word that clarifies “Separation of Church and State”: Jurisdictional. The church & state have separate Biblically assigned realms of authority and responsibility - and the truth of Scripture regulates where each institution’s jurisdiction extends.

I'm like 50 minutes in. Winger is saying he's puzzled as to why there would be a discussion about applying the 10 commandments and I agree! What's selling me more and more on theonomy is the idea that God is unchanging and that our sense of justice can't be higher than His. So where do we look for His sense of justice? The OT law. If we see the death penalty being prescribed because murder is so heinous, then we should follow suit in present day, for instance. Same with kidnapping, or rape. Basically, I think that God's pattern of justice is probably better than whatever arbitrary consequences we as a society can dream up.

Thank for for this video both of ylu brothers please keep doing this it helps to break things down and help ppl that don’t understand a lot Of the rhetoric that just goes on without explaining it to people that have no clue. I love this. Thank you. Praise Jesus

I was listening to the two of you talk about the law of Christ and I kept asking, "How do you define love? How do you define love?" Then you asked the question. Thank you!!

Love this discussion between brothers in Christ. Both of your ministries have been such a blessing in my life. Would love to see Mike back once he has gathered his thoughts or had some time to look into theonomy further. This is a topic I have mixed views on but these discussions are really insightful and help to develop my own position on things according to the Scriptures.

This has been excellent. I respect Mike though I side totally with Joel. I respect Mike because of his passionate interest in the truth of God's word. He is humble (they both are very respectful) and has a attitude of wanting to know. I say this because it is Joel's podcast and he is the one doing the explaining about theonomy. This is prerequisite in knowing a man is a lover of God when he can have a transparent attitude and can be open to listen and learn and come to an honest conclusion...or not actually. Maybe someone can't settle an idea in his/her mind for some time. But irregardless of what side of the fence he ends up sitting, I would never count Mike out as I would never count my Arminian mother out. Got some things wrong, but God is gracious and has the ability to teach his own servants.

Great conversation, waiting for follow ups! Two thoughts for Mike - 1. The Church is not over the State (in reference to your last comments), God is, and His Word, which dictates to ALL spheres of government how to behave. 2. It is not a “government” that is Christian, it is a government full of Christians applying God’s Word to all spheres of life, which then in turn rule with God as King and rule giver. I wish Joel would ask Mike - If 80% of the USA are now true believers (which will happen) and 80% of Congress are true believers, what kind of laws should they make, and based on what authority?!? I hope he would then understand that if Jesus was serious about the Great Commission, and the Holy Spirit is successful in converting the Nations, the resulting society will be “Christian” by definition and it will not be rule by force but rule of Christ by and through Christians (not the “Church”) who want to obey Christ because they love Him.

That really was excellent to hear!! Helped me so much to understand why people look at me cross-eyed when I mention general equity theonomy. My big take away is this… you guys were talking about it near the end… When people are converted or when believers become government officials (of some kind… legislator, sheriff, even government school teacher) there should be NO WAY for their beliefs NOT to inform what they do. If you are a slave of Christ, you are about your Master’s business. So, we absolutely need to know HOW to do these things. I think it’s called having a Biblical worldview. A great place to start with that is “Total Truth” by Nancy Pearcey. Or, you can just go back further to Francis Schaeffer. 🙏🏻

This is great! I really like both of you, so I was so excited to see this! Pastor Joel, you have the best guests!!

Hey brother thank you so much for the very honorable, respectful, caring, thoughtful dialogue with brother winger on this topic. This is how All of our conversations should go. I felt the difference between your positions but I felt more the respect and love. Thank you for that.

This video helped me think out some issues concerning the doctrines discussed. Thank you, brothers.

Psalm 2, Isaiah 11:9, and the question “by what standard” or “how do we define Justice/what is true” have been helpful for me in understanding this topic

What a great example of believers being able to converse with grace. I'm more and more impressed with Webbon.

Awesome example of how to have convos regarding theological differences! Loved it.

Good stuff, thanks Joel and Mike. I think you're right about the connection between theonomy and postmillenialism. I became convinced of postmillenialism in 2019, and then theonomy probably a year ago or so. I think if I was still a staunch premill or still a dispensationalist I would have definitely viewed the last two years a lot differently--probably would have thought it was indicative of an imminent return of Christ.

This needs to happen more! You are awesome Joel Webbon to host others with different views

Amen I love see brothers in CHRIST talk over their perspective. Pastor Mike isn’t reformed at all in his theology but He is our brother in Christ.

2 of my favorite content makers. Thank you both, gentlemen for talking through these different angles cordially.

Mike Winger is pretty solid with his biblical teachings. While I do lean more conservatively, I'm also not a calvinist (nor an arminian).

Just finished listening, and again I loved this. I'm the sidelines guy giving advice to the professional by saying this, but I would have loved to see you ask follow up questions to his questions, like, "How do your doctrines answer your questions?" I loved hearing your answers, and I learned from them, but it typically seemed to take the position of defense. (Defense not in a negative sense) Of course, there's always the possibility that this was not the place for that. And just so you know, I didn't want to see you go on "offense" to "destroy" Mr. Winger, but I was truly interested in how he solved the problems that come from the question, "To what do civil governments appeal to define evil as they fulfill their God-ordained mission of restraining it?"

SUPER interesting, and l loved the whole talk! Thank you Joel! Love Mike Winger btw ...l think everyone does! :D GLORY to Jesus!

Absolutely phenomenal video, as usual. Pastor Joel is one of the most brilliant and faithful thinkers of this generation.

This is a great discussion. It is as it should be, you will notice that there are others that show complete disrespect for others opinions which of course just leads to confusion and nothing is gained.

This was very edifying and informative. Thank you brother Joel and Mike!

Thank you! Great discussion! Regarding the Sabbath, I know Mike would ask for an example of nations in the Bible, but there’s definitely examples of reward for Gentiles who do follow it. One of the most amazing promises in my opinion. Isaiah 56:3-7 [3] Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD say, “The LORD will surely separate me from his people”; and let not the eunuch say, “Behold, I am a dry tree.” [4] For thus says the LORD: “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, [5] I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off. [6] “And the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD, to minister to him, to love the name of the LORD, and to be his servants, everyone who keeps the Sabbath and does not profane it, and holds fast my covenant- [7] these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.”

Thanks for this. Since becoming Reformed within the last two years, I've heard a lot of new concepts, theonomy being one of them. Mike articulated many of the questions I've had (and still have). I must say, Joel, I get a sense that your understanding of theonomic government is _much more_ gracious than I've heard from anyone else speaking on the subject. It would be great if others made it clear that Christians won't be policing homes for Sabbath-breakers, or putting Muslims in concentration camps. While I don't think that Constantine is the best example of theonomic government to turn to, I'm sure Christians in the Roman Empire breathed a sigh of relief that it was finally encouraged by the government to be a Christian. (I doubt Constantine's testimony that Christ told him to conquer under the sign of the cross, but I'm not willing to go so far as saying Constantine wasn't saved.) I get why postmillennialism and theonomy go hand-in-hand. I would say I lean postmillennial, but I'm not ready to make an intellectual commitment to it. All I know for certain about eschatology, since coming from the confusion of the Dispensational view, is that Christ is returning some day. It could be tomorrow, the next day, or 10,000 years from now and He would not be slow in keeping His promise. As it is written, "Even so, come, Lord Jesus!"

I'm sharing this interview with as many folks in my camp as I can. Great conversation

Good discussion. Good explanations from Joel with some good push-back and questions from Mike. Thank you both.

Joel is the best explainer of all things theonomic and postmil. I’ve listened to many others, but Joel is the best 🎉

"If my Kingdom was of this world then my servants would be fighting" . . . finish the verse though . . . "so that I would not be delivered over to the Jews". Jesus was saying that His servants would not be fighting to prevent His crucifixion not that His servants do not fight to advance His Kingdom. Great discussion. Need more of these.

Two warriors breaking bread.

Born Again Philippines is coming very, very near in Jesus Christ Holy, mighty and powerful name I pray Amen.

I am still defining and shaping my theological ideas, but I try to keep an open mind to learn as much as possible from different ideas. I strive to learn and think about the ideas given those who are smarter than me such as Mike Winger and Joel Webbon and others. I believe in the idea of living under God's holy, wise, and just ways by giving individual persons natural rights and the freedom to chose his ways. The readings of Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine writings build their arguments on the how the Bible gives us guidance to live together.

I am not sure where I land on post mill, amill, or premill nor am I a Calvinist but I definitely believe that theonomy is a view that makes sense and seems to be consistent with Christs’ reign and objective morality (God’s Law).

Very interesting on both sides. I've never herd of the word Theonomy, but at the time of this recording I had never heard of you either. I was tracking with you both on most of it. I do love Mike, listen to him often. Good debate. Love that you both show respect. Truly living as brothers.

Mike's question about whether one must be a theonomist to practice love was a pivotal moment. I would ask, can one define love without reference to the law of God? As Joel said, people have twisted love to mean all manner of things, including evil. How is the term to be bounded if not by God's law-word? I think the answer must be yes, you must be a theonomist whether you realize it or not.

This conversation was excellent! Please do more collaborations in the future

Great discussion. Thanks

Love Winger and Joel! Winger was definitely my gateway drug! 😂

All seemingly negative New Testament passages addressing the law fall into one of three categories: 1. A condemnation of the Law as a means to Salvation. 2. A reference to Christ’s fulfillment of the Ceremonial Law. 3. A statement of the Christian’s rescue by Christ from death-dealing nature of the Law.

Appreciate the conversation. Mike appears to see teaching as being over, rather than teaching affecting every sphere: family, church, and state.

Great. Thank you

I think it’s a little bit condescending to call Winger “less conservative” or “moderate.” He’s absolutely conservative but admittedly comes from a different tradition. I mean, it would be great if he were reformed, but saying that means he’s not as conservative is a mischaracterization.

Great minds❤

You are exactly right....what does LOVE God and LOVE neighbor??? If you take away the 10 commandments ....look out!

Matt. 22:37 - 40 covers all the laws. If you truly love God and your neighbor you will be following the Law.

Loved this. Thank you!

I’m still not sure where this plane landed.

God's LOVE only. And He said what that is

Love Mike another San Diegon and tremendous teacher.

For the record I like you and Jeff and Mike ! gives me the scripture spot on

Of what sins are we guilty now? Only unbelief? Is murder a sin for which people are judged by GOD? What sins apply to us now?

Had to drive 2 hours for work this morning and this was the perfect thing to listen to. Still not sure where I stand on this issue, I think Joel and Mike both make great points. Ultimately though I believe these are still two brothers in Christ and disagreements over theonomy is not going to be the difference between whether someone is saved or not

"we are not under the law"... not under the condemnation of the law (in Christ)

amazing conversation. So well handled and respectful by both men. Thank you pastor Joel

This was a good conversation, but I think too much time was spent at particulars and not enough time was spent establishing why Theonomy is foundationally necessary. I think it would be cool if there was a follow-up episode where Joel got to ask Mike most of the questions instead of the reverse for this very reason.

Idk why Matt 28 means the church is in charge. As we disciple and teach and city officials, politicians, business owners, employees, investors... As they get saved, they will seek to honor God in their position. And what does that look like? Well, they will learn what that looks like from the church, but it doesn't mean that the church suddenly as governmental authority over them.

Excellent video. Please do a follow up conversation after you've each had time to consider the other's perspective. I absolutely love this type of friendly back and forth discussion.

Christ is king of all kings! The growth of his kingdom is seen in the fact that Rome used to cover the globe and now is a dot whereas Christians or the church was a dot that began in Jerusalem but now covers the globe!

What are some differences you have with the old school theonomists? I find myself agreeing with Bahnsen's type of theonomy. Would you consider that general equity?

Fans of both these gentlemen. As a hairstylist I am fascinated by Joel’s haircut

Kinda funny to see Mike keep coming back to “but the church has the power to tell everyone else what to do”. I understand where he is coming from, but I think it is reading our Machiavellian culture of power concentration into the great commission.

This is one of your best I think. I have throughly enjoyed listening to two brothers have a cordial discussion on such a contentious subject. As for me, I simply can't understand how we can love our own children, much less our neighbor, and have the hands-off approach to politics that the American Church has grown accustomed to having. One of the lines of reasoning that makes it so contentious, from my perspective, is at 54:06.There, Mr. Winger seems somewhat incredulous as he restates Mr. Webbon's views. (Incredulous may not the best word, at a loss for another ) As we look around our culture with Sodomy being praised, institutionalized through matrimony, and bordering on the state religion in the public schools, along with out-of-control taxation, theft through money-printing, murder of the unborn and our children being transed, that anyone would reject what Mr. Webbon is saying just seems odd to me. Granted, the theonomist position would have probably seemed odd in the 50's, but the truth is that government laws then actually were much closer to Biblical law. Now we are literally, as we speak, going over a cliff and there is still this automatic, and I think thoughtless, repulsion to the correct rolls, past, present and future, of the Church in culture. And all of this while we can actually see the cultural rot from our living room window.

Now we're getting to the REALLY interesting part of the video and the nitty gritty of the whole subject. One thing I lean toward agreeing with Joel about is that the Law itself is a form of Common Grace. I have pondered and talked with others MANY times about whether we are soteriologically better off today in an age of lawlessness and Godlessness than back in the day when "everybody" believed in God and "everybody" was a Christian. IOW, is it easier to lead one to Christ in a place where God is at least acknowledged to exist and His laws are recognized as a Moral Standard to follow and emulate or the opposite is true? I tend to think Joel hit on something there. That the Law is not only a mirror that points back to us seeing our sin and need for a Savior but also a shield that restrains the outward manifestations of evil. It should be NO news or surprise to anyone to find that shield has been taken down and thus the law of sowing and reaping is at work hardening the hearts of the lawbreakers. Thus the "loving" thing to do would be to put that shield in place. Would it not?

I agree with keeping the Ten Commandments out of love and respect for God. They are perfect and true, given by an eternal and unchanging God.

Hate to say it, but at the end of this convo, it doesn't sound like theonomy is any different than regular ole Christianity. I think that's why the "debate" was a bit confusing at times. It sounds like maybe the debate is really about eschatology (whether post-millenialism is valid). But they did a great job debating respectfully and with charity

We know we love our brother by if we love God and keep his commandments. I have heard a pastor say, well, God’s commandment is love, so that’s all John is saying. But I’m thinking, why would John have bothered to say we know we love our brother by if we love? At some point it would seem to be relevant to ask, and which law is it that is written on our hearts now in Christ? Isn’t it *that* law? Otherwise, we do have a hard time defining love of neighbor. Does it mean we should not prosecute crime, because I am to love neighbor as self and I would never personally want to face civil justice for committing a crime? Romans 13 indicates God still wants civil justice in the earth, right now, before the return of Christ. But to what evils exactly does government apply the sword? Does love mean to feel affection for an enemy or a neighbor so distant I will never meet that person? Enter civil justice codes - the means by which I love a neighbor whom I will never meet. I maintain true justice in society for his sake, protecting him from theft and murder. I offer a literal cup of water to a literal thirsty body in Jesus’ name. Why wouldn’t I maintain a just society for him, right here in this earth? So you have Deuteronomy 19, due process in court, beautifully strategized so that the justice system itself may not be used as a murder weapon. But Deuteronomy 19 applies more broadly and more deeply - say to disciplines of thought in the inner person. How do you evaluate the truth or falsehood of any claim? Isn’t there a court of the mind, in which to hear witnesses and investigate witnesses, without partiality? What would it be like to have a Christian populace who can think in a disciplined fashion because they’ve been practicing this word of righteousness?

Thanks for this! I'm definitely a Mike Winger fan and have followed your show here and there for a while. I lean closer to you in most areas (Calvinist/Postmill, though I remain moderately charismatic). The theonomy piece is one I've gradually been trying to work out since coming to a postmill perspective. I think Mike's pushback over the sin vs. crime piece was what was most thought provoking to me. It does seem difficult to deny that the nation of Israel's law enforcement did at times enter the world of private sins. A few examples come to mind. I recall a passage where an Israelite was put to death for picking up sticks on the sabbath. Many sexual sins are punished as a capital offense, though I would assume these sins are generally carried out in the privacy of a home. I guess I'd ask how such specific examples would be addressed in light of your definition of theonomy in this conversation.

Just finished this. I must tell you guys that I thoroughly enjoyed this. VERY much so. Obviously there are a ton of "what if's" that come to mind. I'm not Post-Mil but the way that Joel laid this all out, especially emphasizing that Theonomy does NOT mean Theocracy, really makes me think. Mike brought up a lot of great points too. Overall, just an all around GREAT thought-provoking time and I'd like to see more time dedicated to teasing out more specifics. Definitely sharing this. My thanks to both of you!!

I am subscribed to both men on RU-vid. I believe they both love ❤️ God and His Word.

His servants include the angels. He's not going to have his angels come in and whipe everyone out like the world's kingdoms do. It's not a flesh and blood battle.

When Jesus said our righteousness should exceed that of the Pharisees, I believe He meant that literally as in lawfully. And that is easy to demonstrate. The Pharisees didn't follow the law. Mt 23:2-4, Mat 15:3-9, Mat 7:13, Mat 15:7, 16:3, 22:18; 23:23, 25, 27, 29; Mk 7:6; Jn 12:43; Mat 23:28; Mk 7:13.

1 Timothy 1 is also a proof text for theonomy: But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, knowing this, that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and godless, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for sexually immoral persons, for homosexuals, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted. 1 Timothy 1:8‭-‬11 LSB

Good, informative discussion. Wrapped up well, with concise descriptions of each perspective. Question: Can someone help me out with this? The part where they were parsing out Jesus' response to Pilate.. didn't Jesus say that His servants WOULD fight? I think Mike started with that, but then it morphed to "would not". Am I way off? To me this is not a pacifism issue; it is showing that Jesus does not have any alliance with worldly political structures. Joel had highlighted the distinction between "in" and "of" regarding Jesus' kingdom. That was helpful. Jesus has a kingdom which is growing, and which has not come from any earthly system previously set up. If his Kingdom were established at that time, in that system, his subjects would most certainly fight on behalf of their Lord. Am I missing something? Did they accidentally get that one word, "would", wrong? I actually believe the pre-mil perspective, so I believe that the church is the growing kingdom - hidden and weak, yet powerful in Christ - which does influence governments to some degree. Anyway, thanks for the talk. but this talk has, nevertheless, been thought-provoking.

Love both of your guys' ministry. More of this please :-)

Regarding that bit about Jesus saying "my kingdom is not of this world": Do you think a helpful way to articulate it would be that Jesus' kingdom is not founded in the same way as the kingdoms of the world, and does not derive its authority in that way? I'm keeping in mind Christ was talking to Pontius Pilate as he said this. A governor of Rome who had a particular understanding of the basis of a kingdom's authority (i.e. the liberal and literal application of the sword). Jesus says "no, that's not how my kingdom is built." He's correcting the this idea which had been, was, and still is central to earthly political machinations (see Joe Biden's remarks on F-15s). It's also not the only time such a question becomes a sticking point in Jesus' time on earth. The Pharisees, obsessed with the earthly trappings of authority and power, demanded to know where he got his. At one point (at least), they tried to trap him in the issue of taxation; the bait wasn't a question of currency, it was "who is really in charge here?" Look where their focus was and who they were worried about upsetting, if Jesus' political threat (which *was* a threat, just not in the way they thought) continued. "The Romans will come wipe us out if we don't get a handle on this." The Jewish leadership by the era of the New Testament had come to worship the same forms and origins of power as Rome. And, if you take a preterist perspective on Revelation, they were as good as in bed with Rome in the eyes of God. In many ways I think it's a continuation of a key question throughout the Bible from the plagues of Egypt, to Joshua's reaffirming the Mosaic covenant, to the Judges, to the succession crises of the throne of Israel, to the prophets' scathing condemnation of worthless idols, to the ascension and Revelation of Christ: "who is really in charge here?" Answer wrong and win an unpleasant prize.

Great job @Mike Winger! Always good to hear you think. Joel did a great job conveying the info, but at points went too deep into details and definitions. But that's also part of why I like Joel. He works hard to convey complete ideas.

As an Aussie I just heard Joel say "regenerate, 'true blue' Christian"! That's the first time I've heard an American use the phrase 'true blue'. Is Aussie lingo spreading? If so consider me stoked.

Mike is awesome!

I am so happy this happened! Two men of God! This is wonderful.

Up until just this past year I have always considered the Ten Commandments to be the mainstay of the Moral Law. However, last year in a roundabout way while studying the Creation Account and the question of a literal 6-Day Creation, I came across Exo. 31:16-17. Then not long afterwards I got into a discussion with a SDA adherent and the Holy Spirit brought that back to mind. That led to an in-depth study into the Sabbath. I don't see how it could be any clearer that the Sabbath was never intended to be a covenant with Gentiles. Thus that got me to thinking. Could it be that I've been taught and have subsequently thought wrong for decades about the Ten Commandments? The Ten Commandments are obviously a covenant between God and the People of Israel. The People of Israel are called the Elect and were set apart, made holy, for what purpose? Was it not to be an example that pointed to the One True God? And if that be the case then why could the Ten not contain a Ceremonial Law such as the 4th? Perhaps even a Civil Law. For as I think about it and even write this I am thinking that maybe the 5th Commandment and a couple others could be more of a Civil Law? Certainly nothing I'd be dogmatic about now but I'd be interested in hearing both Joel and Mike's thoughts on that. What is the reasoning behind the 4th Commandment being Moral and not Ceremonial? I can think of perhaps one argument but will wait to hear your thoughts before I offer it.

These verses appear to support general equity theonomy showing that it is right and proper for is to interact with, preach to and pray for kings and those in authority... "Princes also did sit and speak against me but thy servant did meditate in thy statutes. I will speak of thy testimonies also before kings and will not be ashamed." Psalm 119 23 and 46 "First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 1 Timothy 2:1-4 Our civil magistrates will one day be judged just like you and me. It is out of love for them that we call them to obedience to the law of Christ.

God's nature is unchanging. How each society and time period implements being faithful to the character of God may look different, but the moral values themselves are unchanging. Frank Turek gives the example about the parent telling the child "stay out of the street"; then when the child grows into an adult, that same parent tells that same child: "Go out into the street and get a job!". The moral values don't change; we humans change, to a degree. Michael Heiser goes a good bit into talking about how a lot of the old testament cleanliness laws were more-so a telegraphing God's other-ness and the concept of holiness(being set apart). That's why we would no do the whole law about not wearing mixed fibers as Christians today, but implement holy behavior in other ways. It is an important question to ask how the Christian is best able to glorify God today, to what degree, and with what methods/goals; good discussion.

1:26:24 "I don't think the nations are part of Christ's kingdom" Ask me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession. You will break them with a rod of iron; you will dash them to pieces like pottery. Psalm 2:8-9 The Lord has established his throne in the heavens, and his kingdom rules over all. Psalm 103:19 From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule3 them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. Revelation 19:15 For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all. 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." Matthew 28:18

This was fantastic. Good job, Joel.