What do you think?
The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses
Poythress demonstrates how the sacrifices, traditions, and penalties of the law of Moses graphically foreshadow the work of Christ and his relationship with his people.
448 pages, Paperback
First published February 1, 1991
About the author
Vern S. Poythress
88 books157 followersVern Sheridan Poythress was born in 1946 in Madera, California, where he lived with his parents Ransom H. Poythress and Carola N. Poythress and his older brother Kenneth R. Poythress. After teaching mathematics for a year at Fresno State College (now California State University at Fresno), he became a student at Westminster Theological Seminary, where he earned an M.Div. (1974) and a Th.M. in apologetics (1974). He received an M.Litt. in New Testament from University of Cambridge (1977) and a Th.D. in New Testament from the University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa (1981).
He has been teaching in New Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia since 1976. In 1981 he was ordained as a teaching elder in the Reformed Presbyterian Church Evangelical Synod, which has now merged with the Presbyterian Church in America.
More information about his teaching at Westminster can be found at the Westminster Seminary website.
Dr. Poythress studied linguistics and Bible translation at the Summer Institute of Linguistics in Norman Oklahoma in 1971 and 1972, and taught linguistics at the Summer Institute of Linguistics in the summers of 1974, 1975, and 1977. He has published books on Christian philosophy of science, theological method, dispensationalism, biblical law, hermeneutics, Bible translation, and Revelation. A list of publications is found on this website.
Dr. Poythress married his wife Diane in 1983, and they have two children, Ransom and Justin. He has side interests in science fiction, string figures, volleyball, and computers.
The family lived on a farm until he was five years old. When he was nine years old he made a public commitment to Christ and was baptized in Chowchilla First Baptist Church, Chowchilla, California. The family later moved to Fresno, California, and he graduated from Bullard High School in Fresno.
He earned a B.S. in mathematics from California Institute of Technology (1966) and a Ph.D. in mathematics from Harvard University (1970).
He has been teaching in New Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia since 1976. In 1981 he was ordained as a teaching elder in the Reformed Presbyterian Church Evangelical Synod, which has now merged with the Presbyterian Church in America.
More information about his teaching at Westminster can be found at the Westminster Seminary website.
Dr. Poythress studied linguistics and Bible translation at the Summer Institute of Linguistics in Norman Oklahoma in 1971 and 1972, and taught linguistics at the Summer Institute of Linguistics in the summers of 1974, 1975, and 1977. He has published books on Christian philosophy of science, theological method, dispensationalism, biblical law, hermeneutics, Bible translation, and Revelation. A list of publications is found on this website.
Dr. Poythress married his wife Diane in 1983, and they have two children, Ransom and Justin. He has side interests in science fiction, string figures, volleyball, and computers.
The family lived on a farm until he was five years old. When he was nine years old he made a public commitment to Christ and was baptized in Chowchilla First Baptist Church, Chowchilla, California. The family later moved to Fresno, California, and he graduated from Bullard High School in Fresno.
He earned a B.S. in mathematics from California Institute of Technology (1966) and a Ph.D. in mathematics from Harvard University (1970).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews
March 7, 2024
Regardless of one’s position on theonomy, there is no good way to write about it. The extremes on either end are the loudest, leaving fruitful dialogue among the first victims. If one side acts like God’s laws are mean, and the other cannot go beyond stale cliches, then what is the point? Fortunately, Vern Poythress’s Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses goes beyond the theonomy debate. There is more to the Old Testament than just laws. Intuitively, we know that, but after Greg Bahnsen and Rousas J. Rushdoony, no one really wants to talk about typology and symbolism. That is understandable. Typology is not always 100% absolute, and theonomy’s followers want an absolute sort of certainty. Symbolism, moreover, does not seem immediately relevant to society’s problems.
The above line of thinking is unfortunate, leaving theonomy in a dead-end. Those thinkers who were originally theonomists, men such as James Jordan and Ray Sutton, while having problems in their theology elsewhere, began to see what Poythress saw: God’s law is relevant today but not in the way Bahnsen thinks.
Foundational to Poythress’s work is the tabernacle, the dwelling place of God with man. For the ancient Israelite, the tabernacle, the law, and the land formed a unity. Abstracting one from the others leads to distortions.
Tabernacle
It was “a tent with two inner rooms and a yard outside” (Poythress11). It had “unmistakable signs of the symbolism of heaven. The two cherubim by the ark are replicas of angelic heavenly beings guarding the throne of God” (14). Its furniture symbolizes almond trees (Exodus 25:31-39). The symbolism suggests the Garden of Eden. (This line of thinking has been borne out by the work of G. K. Beale. See The Temple and the Church’s Mission.).
Poythress summarizes the symbolism (31-33):
God dwells in heaven in the midst of his angelic court.
The whole universe has been constructed like a house (1 Kgs 8:30; Isaiah 6:1-2).
The tabernacle and temple are special dwellings of God.
The symbolism of the temple/tabernacle in some ways looks backward toward the garden of Eden.
The people of God become a corporate dwelling place of God.
The body of each saint is a dwelling place of God.
The New Jerusalem is the final dwelling of God with human beings.
Christ himself is the ultimate dwelling of God with human beings.
By way of summary, we can see that the tabernacle is a copy of heaven (Hebrews 8:5).
The Land
If the symbolism of the tabernacle holds, then we see that the “land as the dwelling of God is analogous to the tabernacle and temple” (70). As God declares in Numbers 35:34, the holy land is the symbolic place where God dwells. Because God dwells in this land in a special place, it can be defiled. If it is defiled, it needs special types of sacrifices and cleansing.
The Unity between Tabernacle, Land, and Law
Although Poythress’s treatment of the law follows the standard Reformed model, he highlights the unity of the law and the land. It separates, among other things, Israel from the other nations. Even the laws that are “moral” are first embedded in Israel’s own narrative. The Sabbath law, a creation ordinance, reminds Israel of its past history where it was enslaved (101).
Penalties
While Poythress will reject the theonomic thesis, he (and we) must acknowledge that God’s punishments cannot be unjust at that time. Nonetheless, even if they are just, the rationale behind some is not clear. While the principle, for example, of double restitution is foundational to a just order, the Torah does not always follow it. In Lev. 6, the thief must make double restitution, which seems natural enough. He must also add ⅕ to the sacrifice. Why? The text does not say. That is one of many examples that should caution us against applying some of these penalties in a wooden manner (131).
Moreover, as Poythress asks, “If every sin is an infinitely serious offense against the majesty and holiness of God, how do we understand the differences in the penalties in the Mosaic law” (134)?
Manslaughter
On one level, the Old Testament’s handling of manslaughter is similar to a modern state’s: manslaughter is obviously not the same as murder and should not be punished as harshly. So far, so good. But the victim’s family cannot simply “forgive” the killer. The guilty party must flee to the city of refuge, and while Poythress does not bring this out, the avenger of blood must pursue him. Why? Because the land cries out for blood. The land is holy and it is now defiled. Poythress’s argument hints at this, but he could have developed it further.
Blasphemy and Profanation
Deuteronomy 13 speaks of a city in Israel which is seduced into false worship. As a result, the rest of Israel must burn that city as an ascension offering in order to purge the land of evil. Should this law apply today? Our first impulse is to say no, and we would be correct–but not for reasons congenial to a post-Enlightenment social order. It does not apply today for the simple reason that we do not offer ascension sacrifices (burnt offerings) in order to purge the land. The land of Israel in the Old Testament was holy in a way that our nation states today are not. Moreover, no one, not even theonomists (though Rushdoony does approve of some memorial offerings the Armenian Orthodox did), believe we should offer sacrifices.
A theonomist could respond that the underlying principle should be upheld. That is not so easy, either. Deuteronomy 13 is not simply a “case law.” It is also embedded in the typological and so-called “ceremonial” fabric of Israel. It is not clear that “general equity” applies in this manner.
While Poythress is hesitant–and rightly so–to use Deuteronomy 13 to purge false worship from a modern state, it is not quite so simple with more exotic crimes like witchcraft, sorcery, and the occult. Of course, the teenager who thinks she is “Wiccan” does not need to be prosecuted, but we should also realize that “some forms of occult practice involve additional crimes” (179). Indeed, “black magic ought to be punished when the attempt to do evil is legally demonstrable” (180).
(He makes an interesting observation a few pages later, regarding “cursing” one’s parents: “within Israelite society cursing was closer to black magic” (188)). That does not mean, of course, that one should treat his parents with disrespect.
Just Penalties for Sexual Crimes
Do Deuteronomy 22:28-29 and Exodus 22:16-17 refer to rape or seduction? Even though a good case can be made for the latter, I think the passage is deliberately ambiguous and for a good reason: real life situations are not always neat and clean. Regardless of the situation, there would now be a young woman who is no longer a virgin, suffering the social trauma that would come with it in the ancient world. To remedy this, regardless of whether it was rape or seduction, she would need money to offset other social factors.
Cases involving adultery are more clear cut, but even then there are some surprises. Should the death penalty be involved? Poythress leaves that option open (209). Adultery attacks the very fabric of society and cannot be taken lightly. Assuming that most adulterers will not be put to death, we come back to money. “The offended spouse should be able to receive a divorce and a payment in money and property” (210).
That seems fairly clear-cut. What is not clear, as Poythress notes, is why “the penalty for non-adulterous forced sexual intercause, as in Deuteronomy 22:28-29, be more lenient than the penalty for adulterous rape” (213). Moreover, and he could be wrong on this, why are not men punished for visiting a harlot?
It gets stranger still. It is quite conceivable that one punishment would be polygamy. For example, if a married man seduces an unmarried virgin, he has to marry her. No one, not even today’s Mormons, seriously suggest applying that law today. If we do not do that, then it is not clear how helpful general equity is in this situation.
On Punishment in General
Poythress follows C.S. Lewis’s incisive reasoning on the justness of restitution. If there is a place for deterrence and rehabilitation in punishment, it can only have a minor role. He has an excellent chapter critiquing the prison systems. If a punishment must fit the crime, then it is not clear how prison ever “fits” any crime. Even worse, the victim ends up paying for the criminal. If you have read Lewis’s essay “On the Humanitarian View of Punishment,” then you know of the wickedness of which Poythress speaks.
Theonomy
It might surprise some to note, but Poythress believes that the same principles behind Old Testament justice apply now, at least at the basic level (161). Nonetheless, we must also keep in mind the ways in which the Old Testament foreshadows the work of Christ.
Poythress’s work is not a full critique of theonomy. Rather, he focuses on theonomy’s use of Matthew 5:17-20. In short, does “fulfill” (pleroo) primarily mean “establish as binding” or does it have a more prophetic meaning. While it is possible that pleroo can mean “establish,” it is not the most natural reading of the term, and it is certainly not the most natural reading in Matthew.
Pleroo has a more “forward-moving” sense to it. In Matthew, for example, Jesus is moving the story forward. In other words, it is eschatological. If Jesus wanted to give Bahnsen’s sense of the term, he would have used bebaioo or histemi instead (267).
Sin and Crime
Theonomists like to say that the state should punish some sins against God, as all sin is ultimately against God. Be that as it may, once we go down that path, the line between sin and crime gets blurred. Theonomists correctly remind us that not all sins are crimes, but if the state has to punish offenses against God, this distinction cannot be maintained.
Even worse, since sins against God are infinitely offensive, what is the appropriate punishment (295).
Conclusion
This is the best book to come out of the theonomy era. Against theonomists, Poythress actually works through the hard particulars of the case laws. These particulars make the theonomists’ cliches (e.g., “By What Standard?”) rather empty. On the other hand, Poythress notes that these laws, or the principles behind them, anyway, are more binding and just than some of theonomy’s critics may want to admit.
The above line of thinking is unfortunate, leaving theonomy in a dead-end. Those thinkers who were originally theonomists, men such as James Jordan and Ray Sutton, while having problems in their theology elsewhere, began to see what Poythress saw: God’s law is relevant today but not in the way Bahnsen thinks.
Foundational to Poythress’s work is the tabernacle, the dwelling place of God with man. For the ancient Israelite, the tabernacle, the law, and the land formed a unity. Abstracting one from the others leads to distortions.
Tabernacle
It was “a tent with two inner rooms and a yard outside” (Poythress11). It had “unmistakable signs of the symbolism of heaven. The two cherubim by the ark are replicas of angelic heavenly beings guarding the throne of God” (14). Its furniture symbolizes almond trees (Exodus 25:31-39). The symbolism suggests the Garden of Eden. (This line of thinking has been borne out by the work of G. K. Beale. See The Temple and the Church’s Mission.).
Poythress summarizes the symbolism (31-33):
God dwells in heaven in the midst of his angelic court.
The whole universe has been constructed like a house (1 Kgs 8:30; Isaiah 6:1-2).
The tabernacle and temple are special dwellings of God.
The symbolism of the temple/tabernacle in some ways looks backward toward the garden of Eden.
The people of God become a corporate dwelling place of God.
The body of each saint is a dwelling place of God.
The New Jerusalem is the final dwelling of God with human beings.
Christ himself is the ultimate dwelling of God with human beings.
By way of summary, we can see that the tabernacle is a copy of heaven (Hebrews 8:5).
The Land
If the symbolism of the tabernacle holds, then we see that the “land as the dwelling of God is analogous to the tabernacle and temple” (70). As God declares in Numbers 35:34, the holy land is the symbolic place where God dwells. Because God dwells in this land in a special place, it can be defiled. If it is defiled, it needs special types of sacrifices and cleansing.
The Unity between Tabernacle, Land, and Law
Although Poythress’s treatment of the law follows the standard Reformed model, he highlights the unity of the law and the land. It separates, among other things, Israel from the other nations. Even the laws that are “moral” are first embedded in Israel’s own narrative. The Sabbath law, a creation ordinance, reminds Israel of its past history where it was enslaved (101).
Penalties
While Poythress will reject the theonomic thesis, he (and we) must acknowledge that God’s punishments cannot be unjust at that time. Nonetheless, even if they are just, the rationale behind some is not clear. While the principle, for example, of double restitution is foundational to a just order, the Torah does not always follow it. In Lev. 6, the thief must make double restitution, which seems natural enough. He must also add ⅕ to the sacrifice. Why? The text does not say. That is one of many examples that should caution us against applying some of these penalties in a wooden manner (131).
Moreover, as Poythress asks, “If every sin is an infinitely serious offense against the majesty and holiness of God, how do we understand the differences in the penalties in the Mosaic law” (134)?
Manslaughter
On one level, the Old Testament’s handling of manslaughter is similar to a modern state’s: manslaughter is obviously not the same as murder and should not be punished as harshly. So far, so good. But the victim’s family cannot simply “forgive” the killer. The guilty party must flee to the city of refuge, and while Poythress does not bring this out, the avenger of blood must pursue him. Why? Because the land cries out for blood. The land is holy and it is now defiled. Poythress’s argument hints at this, but he could have developed it further.
Blasphemy and Profanation
Deuteronomy 13 speaks of a city in Israel which is seduced into false worship. As a result, the rest of Israel must burn that city as an ascension offering in order to purge the land of evil. Should this law apply today? Our first impulse is to say no, and we would be correct–but not for reasons congenial to a post-Enlightenment social order. It does not apply today for the simple reason that we do not offer ascension sacrifices (burnt offerings) in order to purge the land. The land of Israel in the Old Testament was holy in a way that our nation states today are not. Moreover, no one, not even theonomists (though Rushdoony does approve of some memorial offerings the Armenian Orthodox did), believe we should offer sacrifices.
A theonomist could respond that the underlying principle should be upheld. That is not so easy, either. Deuteronomy 13 is not simply a “case law.” It is also embedded in the typological and so-called “ceremonial” fabric of Israel. It is not clear that “general equity” applies in this manner.
While Poythress is hesitant–and rightly so–to use Deuteronomy 13 to purge false worship from a modern state, it is not quite so simple with more exotic crimes like witchcraft, sorcery, and the occult. Of course, the teenager who thinks she is “Wiccan” does not need to be prosecuted, but we should also realize that “some forms of occult practice involve additional crimes” (179). Indeed, “black magic ought to be punished when the attempt to do evil is legally demonstrable” (180).
(He makes an interesting observation a few pages later, regarding “cursing” one’s parents: “within Israelite society cursing was closer to black magic” (188)). That does not mean, of course, that one should treat his parents with disrespect.
Just Penalties for Sexual Crimes
Do Deuteronomy 22:28-29 and Exodus 22:16-17 refer to rape or seduction? Even though a good case can be made for the latter, I think the passage is deliberately ambiguous and for a good reason: real life situations are not always neat and clean. Regardless of the situation, there would now be a young woman who is no longer a virgin, suffering the social trauma that would come with it in the ancient world. To remedy this, regardless of whether it was rape or seduction, she would need money to offset other social factors.
Cases involving adultery are more clear cut, but even then there are some surprises. Should the death penalty be involved? Poythress leaves that option open (209). Adultery attacks the very fabric of society and cannot be taken lightly. Assuming that most adulterers will not be put to death, we come back to money. “The offended spouse should be able to receive a divorce and a payment in money and property” (210).
That seems fairly clear-cut. What is not clear, as Poythress notes, is why “the penalty for non-adulterous forced sexual intercause, as in Deuteronomy 22:28-29, be more lenient than the penalty for adulterous rape” (213). Moreover, and he could be wrong on this, why are not men punished for visiting a harlot?
It gets stranger still. It is quite conceivable that one punishment would be polygamy. For example, if a married man seduces an unmarried virgin, he has to marry her. No one, not even today’s Mormons, seriously suggest applying that law today. If we do not do that, then it is not clear how helpful general equity is in this situation.
On Punishment in General
Poythress follows C.S. Lewis’s incisive reasoning on the justness of restitution. If there is a place for deterrence and rehabilitation in punishment, it can only have a minor role. He has an excellent chapter critiquing the prison systems. If a punishment must fit the crime, then it is not clear how prison ever “fits” any crime. Even worse, the victim ends up paying for the criminal. If you have read Lewis’s essay “On the Humanitarian View of Punishment,” then you know of the wickedness of which Poythress speaks.
Theonomy
It might surprise some to note, but Poythress believes that the same principles behind Old Testament justice apply now, at least at the basic level (161). Nonetheless, we must also keep in mind the ways in which the Old Testament foreshadows the work of Christ.
Poythress’s work is not a full critique of theonomy. Rather, he focuses on theonomy’s use of Matthew 5:17-20. In short, does “fulfill” (pleroo) primarily mean “establish as binding” or does it have a more prophetic meaning. While it is possible that pleroo can mean “establish,” it is not the most natural reading of the term, and it is certainly not the most natural reading in Matthew.
Pleroo has a more “forward-moving” sense to it. In Matthew, for example, Jesus is moving the story forward. In other words, it is eschatological. If Jesus wanted to give Bahnsen’s sense of the term, he would have used bebaioo or histemi instead (267).
Sin and Crime
Theonomists like to say that the state should punish some sins against God, as all sin is ultimately against God. Be that as it may, once we go down that path, the line between sin and crime gets blurred. Theonomists correctly remind us that not all sins are crimes, but if the state has to punish offenses against God, this distinction cannot be maintained.
Even worse, since sins against God are infinitely offensive, what is the appropriate punishment (295).
Conclusion
This is the best book to come out of the theonomy era. Against theonomists, Poythress actually works through the hard particulars of the case laws. These particulars make the theonomists’ cliches (e.g., “By What Standard?”) rather empty. On the other hand, Poythress notes that these laws, or the principles behind them, anyway, are more binding and just than some of theonomy’s critics may want to admit.
May 27, 2024
This book is probably the best work that emerged from the theonomy debate. Rather than dismissing theonomy entirely, Vern Poythress argues for some modification of the theonomic theses, helpfully pointing out where their emphasis on continuity with the Old Testament is overly simplistic. He also warns anti-theonomists against their reactionary dismissal of their opponents, while exhorting theonomists to be more patient towards those with whom they disagree. Perhaps a stronger emphasis on both natural law and the three-fold division of the law would have been welcome, but the author's thoughts are still very useful.
I am tempted to give it four stars because I disagree with the author regarding the civil punishment of idolatry. The author's lax views on this subject are in tension with other aspects of his thesis. Nevertheless, it is an excellent book. Dr Poythress's discussions of typology are pure gold. These are by far the highlights of the volume as they help the reader to see the person and work of Christ in the Old Testament law.
I am tempted to give it four stars because I disagree with the author regarding the civil punishment of idolatry. The author's lax views on this subject are in tension with other aspects of his thesis. Nevertheless, it is an excellent book. Dr Poythress's discussions of typology are pure gold. These are by far the highlights of the volume as they help the reader to see the person and work of Christ in the Old Testament law.
February 11, 2021
Really good. I love it when “big” theological works are a delight to read.
Read
March 16, 2023Very long but his chapters on theonomy were very helpful.
October 12, 2025
Very solid. Something to return to from time to time.
March 17, 2024
Amazing. Will certainly have to return. If you're interested in public theology, church/state issues, typology, and Biblical theology, this is a go-to. Balanced, yet bold.
December 21, 2011
Excellent and fruitful discussion throughout. I agree wholeheartedly that big-kid timeout known as jail time needs to go away, to mention one of many issues Poythress clear-headedly challenges. The wheezy, groaning sound at the end of the book is the sound of Poythress becoming a reluctant theonomist. The main difference between Poythress and a more full-throated theonomy stems from the role of typological interpretation. On this difference, I am pretty sympathetic towards Poythress, but I wish (along with Bahnsen) that he had been more rigorous in defending his typological points, or at least pointed us towards a better case for handling the text that way.
One sentence: Poythress shows us how to love and submit to God's law, giving due respect to its authority and relevance today, in the full light of Christ's work.
One sentence: Poythress shows us how to love and submit to God's law, giving due respect to its authority and relevance today, in the full light of Christ's work.
June 22, 2013
Very interesting analysis of the symbolism of the Mosaic law and some potential points of relevance for the Modern state. Fascinating proposal for an alternative to a prison-centric criminal system. Summary in places but only because of the breadth of his project.
February 9, 2009
Fantastic and okay.
January 18, 2018
Good information, awfully repetitive.
September 17, 2020
Solid. Zipped through this in an hour or so. I’m grateful for all the teaching I’ve received at church and home and college, because all these concepts were super familiar.
February 22, 2013
Law is a word that conjures up images of works righteousness to many—maybe even most Christians, and has led to great confusion and controversy. Vast numbers of writers have taken up law and argued for various positions and I doubt there is any single work that I gets the matter quite right. There is most definitely an antinomian tendency in modern evangelicalism, as Mark Jones has written on in his fine book, “Antinomianism.” This antinomianism is not new and Theonomists like Rushdoony, North, Bahnsen, and a host of others have been trying to teach the relevance of the Mosaic Law today. Most critics have reacted in either apoplexy and horror or have just ignored them. Yet it is obvious to any who read them, that they have a positive contribution to make, even if they are wrong in a number of areas.
There have been a select few who have read the Theonomists profitably, like John Frame, and Vern Poythress and have reached similar conclusions, without going “all the way.” “The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses” is Poythress’ attempt to draw profitably from the Theonomists and critique them where he sees them going astray. Greg Bahnsen has a very good critique of the book in the appendix to his own book “No Other Standard” and I recommend reading it. I cannot possibly go toe to toe with either writer, so my review of Poythress’ fine work will be somewhat muted.
Poythress begins the book by discussing the tabernacle and the imagery it offers to the reader. This is a very helpful section that shows the tabernacle was designed, among other things, to teach Israel through symbols. The “ceremonial” laws related to the tabernacle also taught through imagery. He writes, “the law and the tabernacle are complementary expressions of the same basic realities about the character of God, his dominion and his fellowship with Israel. Law and tabernacle are each to be used to appreciate more deeply the meaning of the other. Each is a guide to properly understanding the other. In fact, in certain respects each is the origin of the other.”
The connection between the tabernacle and the law is one that leads Poythress to look at the law for what it can teach us, as it was designed to teach Israel. This in fact leads him to articulate his hermeneutical method. He writes:
“The tabernacle signifies the reconciliation and communion with God that we enjoy through Christ. The close connection between the law and the tabernacle suggests that the law must fundamentally foreshadow and signify the same realities. The law is the treaty of the great King. This great King came to reign in fullness when Christ came. Christ’s own message on earth is summarized in the words, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” ( Matt. 4:17 ). The kingdom of heaven or the kingdom of God is the saving rule of God, exercised in fulfillment of all the promises of salvation in the Old Testament. Thus the Old Testament proclamations of God the King foreshadow this final proclamation through Christ. “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe” ( Heb. 1:1-2 ).”
Poythress argues that we must understand the Mosaic Law only in terms of the Son, Jesus Christ. He writes, “The law of Moses is a reflection and foreshadowing of the absolute perfection and righteousness of Christ, rather than Christ being a reflection of the law.” We’re not to remain enthralled with the shadow of Christ, but on Christ himself. Still, there is much to learn by studying the shadow—and this is what Poythress seeks to teach.
The Old Testament is a tutor, as Paul writes. We must graduate from school, into maturity and wisdom, rather than remaining students forever—which would neglect and dishonor the very telos of the education. Poythress writes, “…the tabernacle, the law, and the land are given to Israel during a time of immaturity or childhood, before Christ has come. Hence they convey principles of salvation in an elementary pictorial form. They can rightly be described as temporary structures ( Heb. 9:8-10 ; Gal. 3:17-25 ) serving as guides only until Christ comes. The law embodies “basic principles of the world” ( Gal. 4:3 , 9-10 ; Col. 2:20-23 ), elementary teachings that Christians should have gone beyond.”
Poythress examines many of the Old Testament laws and attempts to discover the intent of the law and then show how Christians are to apply the law today. For the law does remain binding—the question is how is it binding in light of Jesus as the new lawgiver. He writes, “Only by discerning the principles of justice can we know what aspects are adjustments applying to particular features of Israelite society and what aspects represent permanent principles.”
He elaborates on his position by saying, “We must endeavor to understand the meaning and function of those laws in their own context and to understand the way in which they point forward to Christ in his perfect justice. The correct application of principles to our own times can only be achieved when we really understand the Bible. Such understanding is an on-going challenge. I make my proposals tentatively because I realize that there is yet more to be understood.”
He does acknowledge natural law, and says, “Though I rely on the Old Testament as a basis for arguing about the appropriateness of various modern penalties, the same conclusions might conceivably be reached by other routes. For example, I can conceive of someone starting not with the Old Testament directly but with the general principle of equivalence: “as you have done, it shall be done to you.” But he rejects the sufficiency of natural law and says, “We must recognize that human sin distorts our attitudes and our “natural” feelings. We must be ready to submit ourselves to Scripture over and over again as a remedy for sin.”
From here, Poythress evaluates “Principles of Justice for the Modern State.” These are helpful examinations of how to apply the law of God to contemporary culture. He arrives upon a number of conclusions at variance with current man-made laws. For example, he rejects the prison system and instead argues for restitution.
He concludes the book by looking at the “Fulfillment of the Law in the Gospel According to Matthew.” The bulk of this portion focuses on Jesus’ “fulfillment of the law.” Here he relies heavily upon others, including Don Carson, who writes:
“…just as Jesus fulfilled OT prophecies by his person and actions, so he fulfilled OT law by his teaching. In no case does this “abolish” the OT as canon, any more than the obsolescence of the Levitical sacrificial system abolishes tabernacle ritual as canon. Instead, the OT’s real and abiding authority must be understood through the person and teaching of him to whom it points and who so richly fulfills it. . . . Jesus is not primarily engaged there [in Matt. 5:21-48] in extending, annulling, or intensifying OT law, but in showing the direction in which it points, on the basis of his own authority (to which, again, the OT points).”
So Poythress, like Carson, argues that Jesus’ fulfillment of the law is a prophetic fulfillment—not a “confirmation” as Bahnsen argues. Here I’ll let others study the two arguments, rather than wade in deeper waters than I’m equipped to do. Look at the appendix in Bahnsen’s “No Other Standard” which can be read for free here:
http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/do...
In the appendices, Poythress explicitly evaluates theonomy and finds much to appreciate and agree upon. He writes:
“At the heart of theonomy is the fundamental conviction that God’s word is the only proper standard for evaluating all human action, including the actions of government officials and the laws made by civil legislators. This particular thesis deserves the support of all Christians, for a very good reason. Confessing the Lordship of God necessarily implies bowing to his will and realizing that he rather than any human being is the sovereign, all-wise judge of the world. The authority of civil government like all other human authority is wholly derivative. Human beings including officers of the state are answerable to God for their every action.”
He also adds:
“In short, theonomists are motivated by three deeply biblical concerns. The first is zeal for the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Christ is King of kings and Lord of lords (Rev. 17:14; 19:16). All of our lives must submit to him. Nothing less than thorough obedience to God in every area of life is the fitting response to his glory, perfection, and bountiful grace. Second, they are motivated by love for God’s law. “Oh how I love thy law! It is my meditation all the day” (Ps. 119:97). The law reveals God in his purity and justice. It also provides precious direction for our path: “Thy word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path” (Ps. 119:105). Such sentiments cannot be dismissed as merely the inferior sentiments of the Old Testament era, for Paul too affirms the holiness and spirituality of the law (Rom. 7:12, 14). Third, theonomists have a deep concern for healing the hurts of modern society, including especially the elimination of tyrannical use of state power. Theonomists know that the ills of modern society run deep, as deep as the horrible depths of sin, and that the remedy must be equally deep and radical.”
I’ll leave it to readers to see the rest, including the points of disagreement, but I admire Poythress for his willingness to appreciate theonomists and recognize their good work in seeking to bring attention to God’s law and that it must be obeyed. There are many particulars where they get it wrong, here I agree with Poythress, but theonomists have really done some good work in reminding Christians that God is the lawgiver and we are required to obey.
There have been a select few who have read the Theonomists profitably, like John Frame, and Vern Poythress and have reached similar conclusions, without going “all the way.” “The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses” is Poythress’ attempt to draw profitably from the Theonomists and critique them where he sees them going astray. Greg Bahnsen has a very good critique of the book in the appendix to his own book “No Other Standard” and I recommend reading it. I cannot possibly go toe to toe with either writer, so my review of Poythress’ fine work will be somewhat muted.
Poythress begins the book by discussing the tabernacle and the imagery it offers to the reader. This is a very helpful section that shows the tabernacle was designed, among other things, to teach Israel through symbols. The “ceremonial” laws related to the tabernacle also taught through imagery. He writes, “the law and the tabernacle are complementary expressions of the same basic realities about the character of God, his dominion and his fellowship with Israel. Law and tabernacle are each to be used to appreciate more deeply the meaning of the other. Each is a guide to properly understanding the other. In fact, in certain respects each is the origin of the other.”
The connection between the tabernacle and the law is one that leads Poythress to look at the law for what it can teach us, as it was designed to teach Israel. This in fact leads him to articulate his hermeneutical method. He writes:
“The tabernacle signifies the reconciliation and communion with God that we enjoy through Christ. The close connection between the law and the tabernacle suggests that the law must fundamentally foreshadow and signify the same realities. The law is the treaty of the great King. This great King came to reign in fullness when Christ came. Christ’s own message on earth is summarized in the words, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” ( Matt. 4:17 ). The kingdom of heaven or the kingdom of God is the saving rule of God, exercised in fulfillment of all the promises of salvation in the Old Testament. Thus the Old Testament proclamations of God the King foreshadow this final proclamation through Christ. “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe” ( Heb. 1:1-2 ).”
Poythress argues that we must understand the Mosaic Law only in terms of the Son, Jesus Christ. He writes, “The law of Moses is a reflection and foreshadowing of the absolute perfection and righteousness of Christ, rather than Christ being a reflection of the law.” We’re not to remain enthralled with the shadow of Christ, but on Christ himself. Still, there is much to learn by studying the shadow—and this is what Poythress seeks to teach.
The Old Testament is a tutor, as Paul writes. We must graduate from school, into maturity and wisdom, rather than remaining students forever—which would neglect and dishonor the very telos of the education. Poythress writes, “…the tabernacle, the law, and the land are given to Israel during a time of immaturity or childhood, before Christ has come. Hence they convey principles of salvation in an elementary pictorial form. They can rightly be described as temporary structures ( Heb. 9:8-10 ; Gal. 3:17-25 ) serving as guides only until Christ comes. The law embodies “basic principles of the world” ( Gal. 4:3 , 9-10 ; Col. 2:20-23 ), elementary teachings that Christians should have gone beyond.”
Poythress examines many of the Old Testament laws and attempts to discover the intent of the law and then show how Christians are to apply the law today. For the law does remain binding—the question is how is it binding in light of Jesus as the new lawgiver. He writes, “Only by discerning the principles of justice can we know what aspects are adjustments applying to particular features of Israelite society and what aspects represent permanent principles.”
He elaborates on his position by saying, “We must endeavor to understand the meaning and function of those laws in their own context and to understand the way in which they point forward to Christ in his perfect justice. The correct application of principles to our own times can only be achieved when we really understand the Bible. Such understanding is an on-going challenge. I make my proposals tentatively because I realize that there is yet more to be understood.”
He does acknowledge natural law, and says, “Though I rely on the Old Testament as a basis for arguing about the appropriateness of various modern penalties, the same conclusions might conceivably be reached by other routes. For example, I can conceive of someone starting not with the Old Testament directly but with the general principle of equivalence: “as you have done, it shall be done to you.” But he rejects the sufficiency of natural law and says, “We must recognize that human sin distorts our attitudes and our “natural” feelings. We must be ready to submit ourselves to Scripture over and over again as a remedy for sin.”
From here, Poythress evaluates “Principles of Justice for the Modern State.” These are helpful examinations of how to apply the law of God to contemporary culture. He arrives upon a number of conclusions at variance with current man-made laws. For example, he rejects the prison system and instead argues for restitution.
He concludes the book by looking at the “Fulfillment of the Law in the Gospel According to Matthew.” The bulk of this portion focuses on Jesus’ “fulfillment of the law.” Here he relies heavily upon others, including Don Carson, who writes:
“…just as Jesus fulfilled OT prophecies by his person and actions, so he fulfilled OT law by his teaching. In no case does this “abolish” the OT as canon, any more than the obsolescence of the Levitical sacrificial system abolishes tabernacle ritual as canon. Instead, the OT’s real and abiding authority must be understood through the person and teaching of him to whom it points and who so richly fulfills it. . . . Jesus is not primarily engaged there [in Matt. 5:21-48] in extending, annulling, or intensifying OT law, but in showing the direction in which it points, on the basis of his own authority (to which, again, the OT points).”
So Poythress, like Carson, argues that Jesus’ fulfillment of the law is a prophetic fulfillment—not a “confirmation” as Bahnsen argues. Here I’ll let others study the two arguments, rather than wade in deeper waters than I’m equipped to do. Look at the appendix in Bahnsen’s “No Other Standard” which can be read for free here:
http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/do...
In the appendices, Poythress explicitly evaluates theonomy and finds much to appreciate and agree upon. He writes:
“At the heart of theonomy is the fundamental conviction that God’s word is the only proper standard for evaluating all human action, including the actions of government officials and the laws made by civil legislators. This particular thesis deserves the support of all Christians, for a very good reason. Confessing the Lordship of God necessarily implies bowing to his will and realizing that he rather than any human being is the sovereign, all-wise judge of the world. The authority of civil government like all other human authority is wholly derivative. Human beings including officers of the state are answerable to God for their every action.”
He also adds:
“In short, theonomists are motivated by three deeply biblical concerns. The first is zeal for the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Christ is King of kings and Lord of lords (Rev. 17:14; 19:16). All of our lives must submit to him. Nothing less than thorough obedience to God in every area of life is the fitting response to his glory, perfection, and bountiful grace. Second, they are motivated by love for God’s law. “Oh how I love thy law! It is my meditation all the day” (Ps. 119:97). The law reveals God in his purity and justice. It also provides precious direction for our path: “Thy word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path” (Ps. 119:105). Such sentiments cannot be dismissed as merely the inferior sentiments of the Old Testament era, for Paul too affirms the holiness and spirituality of the law (Rom. 7:12, 14). Third, theonomists have a deep concern for healing the hurts of modern society, including especially the elimination of tyrannical use of state power. Theonomists know that the ills of modern society run deep, as deep as the horrible depths of sin, and that the remedy must be equally deep and radical.”
I’ll leave it to readers to see the rest, including the points of disagreement, but I admire Poythress for his willingness to appreciate theonomists and recognize their good work in seeking to bring attention to God’s law and that it must be obeyed. There are many particulars where they get it wrong, here I agree with Poythress, but theonomists have really done some good work in reminding Christians that God is the lawgiver and we are required to obey.
January 23, 2026
This book was very much a mixed bag for me. In many ways, the book didn't really seem to be unified around a central theme, but focused on a few topics within the massive theme that is the title of the book.
With that said, there were many parts of this book that I benefitted from immensely, and have marked for future reference and rereading. For the most part, I found Poythress' chapter on the Tabernacle, sacrifices, and priesthood either introductory, or unclear (such as when he is making a multitude of connections and only briefly explaining them). Despite this, there were bits in between that were illuminating. For instance, Poythress' discussion of the vertical arrangement of the larger Tabernacle structures was helpful, as it is something few comment on. I learned that the graded holiness of the Tabernacle is shown in how the tent (Holy Place and Most Holy Place) and courtyard represent heaven and earth respectively. One way Poythress demonstrates this is by observing the graded holiness from the first to the second with respect to the materials used: the tent is surrounded by curtains linked together (from the top) by gold clasps, while resting on sockets of silver so as not to touch the ground of the courtyard. Likewise, the courtyard itself does not make direct contact with the outside land, but rests on bronze sockets. All together, this suggests a vertical arrangement where the tent is seen elevated above the courtyard, and the courtyard above the land (which would presumably be the sea).
By far, I found chapter 9 and Part II of the book ("Understanding Specific Pentalties of the Law") to be the most illuminating. In particular, Poythress' argument about restitution involving (primarily) both restoration and punishment was both convincing from the text and fruitful as a hermeneutic. He moves from laws of accident and theft, for instance, to laws of false worship, holy war, and penal substitution, using the through line of this restitution principle to amazing effect. I would recommend any pastor read Part II of the book, but specifically chapters 9–10.
From these chapters, most of the remainder of the book (save the last chapter) is reserved for how many of the thorniest laws would rightly be applied today. Here, Poythress is also very helpful, especially in his chapter on penalties for sexual crimes (ch. 13), and his critique of prisons (ch. 15).
Overall, this was a really good book. I do not always find Poythress to be the clearest writer, which is likely due to his remarkable intellect, but he is one of the few theologians who actually understands the Old Testament, and is not restrained by cowardice to discuss biblial matters that offend the sacred cows of our culture.
With that said, there were many parts of this book that I benefitted from immensely, and have marked for future reference and rereading. For the most part, I found Poythress' chapter on the Tabernacle, sacrifices, and priesthood either introductory, or unclear (such as when he is making a multitude of connections and only briefly explaining them). Despite this, there were bits in between that were illuminating. For instance, Poythress' discussion of the vertical arrangement of the larger Tabernacle structures was helpful, as it is something few comment on. I learned that the graded holiness of the Tabernacle is shown in how the tent (Holy Place and Most Holy Place) and courtyard represent heaven and earth respectively. One way Poythress demonstrates this is by observing the graded holiness from the first to the second with respect to the materials used: the tent is surrounded by curtains linked together (from the top) by gold clasps, while resting on sockets of silver so as not to touch the ground of the courtyard. Likewise, the courtyard itself does not make direct contact with the outside land, but rests on bronze sockets. All together, this suggests a vertical arrangement where the tent is seen elevated above the courtyard, and the courtyard above the land (which would presumably be the sea).
By far, I found chapter 9 and Part II of the book ("Understanding Specific Pentalties of the Law") to be the most illuminating. In particular, Poythress' argument about restitution involving (primarily) both restoration and punishment was both convincing from the text and fruitful as a hermeneutic. He moves from laws of accident and theft, for instance, to laws of false worship, holy war, and penal substitution, using the through line of this restitution principle to amazing effect. I would recommend any pastor read Part II of the book, but specifically chapters 9–10.
From these chapters, most of the remainder of the book (save the last chapter) is reserved for how many of the thorniest laws would rightly be applied today. Here, Poythress is also very helpful, especially in his chapter on penalties for sexual crimes (ch. 13), and his critique of prisons (ch. 15).
Overall, this was a really good book. I do not always find Poythress to be the clearest writer, which is likely due to his remarkable intellect, but he is one of the few theologians who actually understands the Old Testament, and is not restrained by cowardice to discuss biblial matters that offend the sacred cows of our culture.
May 27, 2020
One of the best books I read for 2019-2020!!! Poythress is soooo insightful and brings out some really amazing connections from OT to NT. If you want to understand and appreciate why the OT law is important and see the beauty of Christ throughout the scriptures from old to new.... Get this book!!
Excellent resource. Originally bought it to help prepare to teach a class on the Law of Moses and this was super helpful.
Highly, highly recommended.
Excellent resource. Originally bought it to help prepare to teach a class on the Law of Moses and this was super helpful.
Highly, highly recommended.
October 21, 2020
4.5 stars because I didn’t love his application to today’s justice system. This book made my head hurt in a good way. So much to think through. Also, read the appendices!!
August 13, 2024
This book definitely made me think and changed my perspective on the Law of God.
I highly recommend. Good stuff.
I highly recommend. Good stuff.
August 17, 2026
Informative exploration of how Old Testament (OT) laws apply in the New Testament (NT), and how they should inform civil laws. It's scholarly, requiring concentration to follow. It's charitable and winsome. I skipped straight to "Part II: Understanding Specific Penalties of the Law."
Poythress says the question isn't whether there's continuity between the OT and today, but what general principles applicable to today are embedded in each OT law. He says there's no easy way to do this. He says God’s character is unchanging, but the NT Church is different from OT Israel due to Christ's resurrection and ascension. There are also differences between Israel's agrarian society which had tribal and, later, monarchical politics, and our secularized, postindustrial society with democratic politics.
Notes
Preface
Poythress thanks Edmund P. Clowney, John M. Frame, Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Meredith G. Kline, Greg L. Bahnsen, James B. Jordan, Steven M. Schlei, Gary North. He expresses appreciation for Geerhardus Vos, Rousas J. Rushdoony.
The Principle of Penal Substitution
Applying Deut. 13:1-18 today
• If false worship (or invitation to it) occurs within Church, unrepentant offender should be excommunicated (1 Cor 5:1-8; Mt 18:15-18).
• If false worship (or invitation to it) occurs outside Church, offender should remain outside Church, with no further penalty.
• False worship should be combated with sharing gospel, not penalties.
Principles of Justice for the Modern State
State only has obligation to act when disputes and injuries are not settled privately. E.g., if thief repents and restores what they've stolen (Lev 6:1-7), case would never come to court. If person knocks out another's tooth, offender and victim can negotiate payment. Only if injured person is not satisfied with offender's offer would they bring case to court, and judges would inflict reciprocal penalty (Lev 24:19-20). Many OT penalties are maximum penalty, not penalty used every time.
Judges or other official mediators may aid negotiation between private parties and protect victim.
Murder and crimes involving usurpation of state authority can't be dealt with privately because of their seriousness (Num 35:31) and lack of state's authority to pardon.
Just Penalties for Many Crimes
Thief must make double payment (restoration plus punishment) because of evil intent (Ex 22:1-7).
Theft and accident still injure owner in same way as OT, so penalties should be same now.
Thieves who have destroyed or sold what they stole must pay fourfold to owner (Ex 22:1). Thieves who steal and destroy or sell most expensive and useful item in culture that can be easily stolen (for us, vehicle) must pay fivefold. However, due to uncertainties about intent of Ex 22:1, double payment may be best general policy.
Thieves who can't pay should be sold into servitude until they've paid (Ex 22:3). Offender can be released if relative or friend pays, or if offender earns enough through other work (Lev 25:49).
Lev 6:1-7 may only apply when offender isn't caught, or it may be general principle that repentance of any offender reduces penalty to restoration plus tithe or token of previous evil intent.
NT confirms authority of state over civil punishment, including death penalty (Rom 13:1-7).
Death penalty is appropriate penalty for murder (Gen 9:6; Num 35:31). It may be that nearest of kin should execute (Num 35:9-34), but there's an argument for state executing.
Attempted murder deserves death penalty because legally demonstrable intention to do something makes one as guilty as doing it (Deut 19:16-21).
If manslaughter is due to gross negligence, killer should receive death penalty (Ex 21:28-30). If manslaughter isn't due to gross negligence, killer must pay family of deceased (Ex 22:5-6).
If someone injures with evil intent, they must pay, similar to thief. They must pay for victim's healing and time lost (Ex 21:18-19), and receive equal bodily damage (Ex 21:23-25; Lev. 24:19-20).
When 2 people fight, it's difficult or impossible to hold only 1 responsible, so the penalty is equal suffering for each. If 1 has lost eye or tooth, other must suffer same. Victim could ask for ransom money instead (Ex. 21:30). If 1 has suffered pain and inconvenience of temporary incapacitation, other must suffer pain of paying for it.
When criminal hurts victim even though that isn't intent (e.g., mugging, armed robbery), maybe a single penalty combining restoration and punishment is enough (Lev 24:19-20).
False witnessing (e.g., slander, libel) has same penalty as person lied about would've received (Deut 19:16-21). If done with malicious intent, false witness must pay for damage caused and pay more as punishment for evil intent. If there was no evil intent, single restoration is enough (Ex 22:5-6).
Blasphemy, witchcraft, sorcery, other crimes involving occult worship are likely in same category as false worship.
Black magic should be punished when attempt to do evil is legally demonstrable.
Sabbath-breaking is similar to false worship.
Believers must not be forced to work on sabbath.
Sabbath-breaking within Church shouldn't be penalized due to "theological uncertainties" about "sabbath observance."
Sins for which “cutting off” is penalty are temporary, symbolic, with possible exception of sabbath-breaking (Ex 31:14-15) and sexual crimes (Lev 18:29).
When death penalty wasn't given for murder in Bible, it was due to lack of legal human witnesses.
Case of woman caught in adultery is almost certainly not in original text, but probably happened.
Usurpation of authority of parents or state should be punished with corporal punishment (Deut 25:1-3).
Kidnappers should be executed.
In cases of parental child-beating and neglect, state may transfer guardianship to near relative (Ex 21:26-27).
Children who curse or strike parents or are incorrigible deserve death (Ex 21:15-17; Deut 21:18-21).
Rebellion against state deserves death (Deut 17:12).
In OT Israel, cursing someone was in sense of black magic rather than modern swearing.
If children curse or strike parents, and parents judge it to be limited attack on their authority, they should give corporal punishment. If it's serious attack, they should take child to civil authorities for death penalty.
State should administer punishment for crimes of bodily injury and murder. In modern society, relatives don't live close enough to avenge death, and land isn't handed down by inheritance in same way.
Parents may impose nonmoral household rules for proper functioning and wellbeing of household. Consequences for older children may be temporary loss of privileges or deductions against allowance. Similarly, state may impose nonmoral rules (e.g., speed laws) for protection and order, and impose monetary penalties.
Fools and young children need corporal punishment because they don't calculate more distant consequences of actions (Pro 10:13; 13:24; 22:15; 23:13-14; 26:3; 29:15).
Penalties for Sexual Crimes
For sex between unmarried, unengaged people, man must marry woman without possibility of divorce and pay cash or deduction from wages. If woman and her family refuse marriage, man still pays (Deut 22:28-29; Ex 22:16-17).
Closest modern equivalent of marriage present is alimony.
Sex between unmarried man and married woman has death penalty for both (Deut 22:22).
Prostitution is sin (Pro 6:26; Hos 4:14), but OT had no civil penalty because any child produced wouldn't confuse inheritance, male promiscuity didn't disrupt Israelite society in same way as adultery with married woman, and prostitute voluntarily gives herself, while married or engaged woman is under husband’s authority.
Promiscuous girl in Deut 22:20-21 is executed because she did it in her father’s house, undermining his authority.
Possible penalties for adultery
• Death
• Castration and payment
• Payment
• Divorce and payment (in money and property)
Best penalty for sex between married man and prostitute is likely divorce and payment (in money and property), but may be death in irremediable cases.
Best penalty for rape is likely castration, but may be death, plus payment of amount equal to marriage present.
Gang rape or rape with weapon deserves same penalty as kidnapping.
Within Church, unrepentant parent-child incest, homosexual practice, bestiality deserve excommunication. Outside Church, must be different penalty, maybe death (as in OT).
OT law never used prison, though other countries did (Gen 39:20).
God can change sexual orientation, but He never promises instant elimination of any temptation, only that it can be resisted (1 Cor 10:13). Christians must often resist temptations for a long time.
Deterrence and Rehabilitation
Time for rehab is between crime and punishment.
A Critique of Prisons
Prison may be used for custody before trial (Lev 24:12; Acts 21:34; 23:35). Time should be short. Bail prevents unjust confinement.
Our Responsibilities Toward Imperfect States
NT doesn't prohibit use of economic or political power, but teaches to live godly lives (Luke 3:12-14; 12:32-34; John 18:36; 1 Tim 6:17-19).
Private individuals may not revolt, but “popular magistrates” have duty to curb tyranny.
Christians may hold political office. Those who don't may participate in politics as skills and time allow (Eph 5:15-16).
We must sometimes vote for imperfect candidates and bills because their alternatives are worse.
Fulfillment of the Law in the Gospel According to Matthew
Principle of just recompense is still operative in NT (Mt 7:2, 12).
That Jesus fulfills law means it points to Him, and He has authority to confirm and advance it. He reiterated it and realized/fulfilled it (Mt 5:21-48). In some cases He “intensified” law; in others He “annulled” some element.
Great Commission shows law still has role in NT (Mt 28:18-20). “Everything I have commanded you” includes Sermon on Mount, where Christ reinforced law (Mt 5:18-19).
Matthew asserts continuation of law to show Jesus is true Messiah, but qualifies with fulfillment in Christ. Paul asserts abolition of law to emphasize unity of Jews and Gentiles in Christ, but qualifies in showing how law points to Christ. They fundamentally agree.
There are moral principles outside Ten Commandments (e.g., Lev 19:18), and some of Ten Commandments contain at least minor ceremonial or culturally specific elements.
Appendix A: False Worship in the Modern State
Christianity is to be spread, and false religion conquered, through spiritual, not physical or legal means (Jn 18:36; Mt 28:18-20; evangelism in Acts; Paul’s letters, e.g. Eph 6:10-20; Col 2:15; spiritual war in Rev).
Deut 13:1-18 and 17:2-7 don't give state authority to suppress false worship. Those passages are about holy war in Israel, and authority wasn't given to state, but to God’s holy people. Destruction of offender foreshadowed Christ's holy war against demonic spirits (Col 2:15).
States are only responsible for punishing offenses against people, not directly against God.
Farming during sabbath year was sin but not crime (Lev 25:1-7).
Crimes are offenses against people, and ought to punished by restoration and retribution paid to people, supervised by human courts.
Penalties aren't determined by how God is offended, but by how people are affected.
OT didn't require state to punish all sins.
In OT, sacrifices represented penalties paid to God, and other penalties dealt with offenses against humans.
False worship is offense against God, but not against people, so state doesn't have authority to punish it.
Attempted assassination or coup is attempt to destroy state, analogous to attempted murder, and deserves death penalty by state.
Forms of false worship involving crimes against people (e.g., such as human sacrifice, Satanic sexual rituals, slanderous blasphemies) are punishable by state.
In a sense God holds society responsible for offense of some, but in another sense He doesn't (Isa 1:16-28; Mic 3:9-12; Ezek 14:14, 20; Gen 18:22-33; 2 Pet 2:6-9). Christians must tell non-Christians of God’s standards and judgments (2 Pet 2:5; Gen 19:7, 9, 14; Dan 5:22-28; Jer 26). and work to establish just laws.
Appendix B: Evaluating Theonomy
Theonomy explained in By This Standard: The Authority of God’s Law Today by Bahnsen.
Other theonomists: Rushdoony, North
Not mixing seeds or fibers (Lev 19:19) was temporary law symbolizing orderliness, separation between holy and common (Ex 30:22-38; Deut 22:9).
God’s moral character is unchangeable, so moral norms are unchanging. But Israel as holy nation had ceremonial ordinances that expressed God’s character and norms adapted to unique situation.
Deut. 4:6-8 doesn't mean nations wanted OT Israel's laws per se, but that they would recognize how special God was, and how special His relationship with Israel.
There are discontinuities between OT Israel and us, so OT statues can't be directly carried over (Mic 4:1-2; Isa 40:5; Lk 24:44-49; Rom. 8:4).
Arguments against theonomy: Meredith Kline's “Comments on an Old-New Error” in Westminster Theological Journal 41 (1978-79) 172-89 and book The Structure of Biblical Authority.
Poythress says Kline probably influenced his view more than theonomists did.
Bibliography
Recommended works
• Leviticus by Wenham
• “Revelation in the Period of Moses” in Biblical Theology by Vos
• Images of the Spirit by Kline
• Toward Old Testament Ethics by Kaiser
Poythress says the question isn't whether there's continuity between the OT and today, but what general principles applicable to today are embedded in each OT law. He says there's no easy way to do this. He says God’s character is unchanging, but the NT Church is different from OT Israel due to Christ's resurrection and ascension. There are also differences between Israel's agrarian society which had tribal and, later, monarchical politics, and our secularized, postindustrial society with democratic politics.
It is one thing to claim that Mosaic laws were just for Israelite society. It is quite another to claim that Mosaic law requires us to adjust modern society to conform exactly to the practices of Israel. The truth lies between the two extremes. At some points … societies may be structured in more than one way and still conform to God’s standards.
… we are not supposed to apply the Old Testament directly to ourselves, as if there were no changes with the coming of Christ. But neither are we supposed to ignore it or dismiss it.
I have never advocated blindly carrying over Old Testament laws into our own time. We must endeavor to understand the meaning and function of those laws in their own context and to understand the way in which they point forward to Christ in his perfect justice. The correct application of principles to our own times can only be achieved when we really understand the Bible. Such understanding is an on-going challenge. I make my proposals tentatively because I realize that there is yet more to be understood.The book can be read for free on Poythress' website.
Notes
Preface
Poythress thanks Edmund P. Clowney, John M. Frame, Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Meredith G. Kline, Greg L. Bahnsen, James B. Jordan, Steven M. Schlei, Gary North. He expresses appreciation for Geerhardus Vos, Rousas J. Rushdoony.
The Principle of Penal Substitution
Applying Deut. 13:1-18 today
• If false worship (or invitation to it) occurs within Church, unrepentant offender should be excommunicated (1 Cor 5:1-8; Mt 18:15-18).
• If false worship (or invitation to it) occurs outside Church, offender should remain outside Church, with no further penalty.
• False worship should be combated with sharing gospel, not penalties.
Principles of Justice for the Modern State
State only has obligation to act when disputes and injuries are not settled privately. E.g., if thief repents and restores what they've stolen (Lev 6:1-7), case would never come to court. If person knocks out another's tooth, offender and victim can negotiate payment. Only if injured person is not satisfied with offender's offer would they bring case to court, and judges would inflict reciprocal penalty (Lev 24:19-20). Many OT penalties are maximum penalty, not penalty used every time.
Judges or other official mediators may aid negotiation between private parties and protect victim.
Murder and crimes involving usurpation of state authority can't be dealt with privately because of their seriousness (Num 35:31) and lack of state's authority to pardon.
Just Penalties for Many Crimes
Thief must make double payment (restoration plus punishment) because of evil intent (Ex 22:1-7).
Theft and accident still injure owner in same way as OT, so penalties should be same now.
Thieves who have destroyed or sold what they stole must pay fourfold to owner (Ex 22:1). Thieves who steal and destroy or sell most expensive and useful item in culture that can be easily stolen (for us, vehicle) must pay fivefold. However, due to uncertainties about intent of Ex 22:1, double payment may be best general policy.
Thieves who can't pay should be sold into servitude until they've paid (Ex 22:3). Offender can be released if relative or friend pays, or if offender earns enough through other work (Lev 25:49).
Lev 6:1-7 may only apply when offender isn't caught, or it may be general principle that repentance of any offender reduces penalty to restoration plus tithe or token of previous evil intent.
NT confirms authority of state over civil punishment, including death penalty (Rom 13:1-7).
Death penalty is appropriate penalty for murder (Gen 9:6; Num 35:31). It may be that nearest of kin should execute (Num 35:9-34), but there's an argument for state executing.
Attempted murder deserves death penalty because legally demonstrable intention to do something makes one as guilty as doing it (Deut 19:16-21).
If manslaughter is due to gross negligence, killer should receive death penalty (Ex 21:28-30). If manslaughter isn't due to gross negligence, killer must pay family of deceased (Ex 22:5-6).
If someone injures with evil intent, they must pay, similar to thief. They must pay for victim's healing and time lost (Ex 21:18-19), and receive equal bodily damage (Ex 21:23-25; Lev. 24:19-20).
When 2 people fight, it's difficult or impossible to hold only 1 responsible, so the penalty is equal suffering for each. If 1 has lost eye or tooth, other must suffer same. Victim could ask for ransom money instead (Ex. 21:30). If 1 has suffered pain and inconvenience of temporary incapacitation, other must suffer pain of paying for it.
When criminal hurts victim even though that isn't intent (e.g., mugging, armed robbery), maybe a single penalty combining restoration and punishment is enough (Lev 24:19-20).
False witnessing (e.g., slander, libel) has same penalty as person lied about would've received (Deut 19:16-21). If done with malicious intent, false witness must pay for damage caused and pay more as punishment for evil intent. If there was no evil intent, single restoration is enough (Ex 22:5-6).
Blasphemy, witchcraft, sorcery, other crimes involving occult worship are likely in same category as false worship.
Black magic should be punished when attempt to do evil is legally demonstrable.
Sabbath-breaking is similar to false worship.
Believers must not be forced to work on sabbath.
Sabbath-breaking within Church shouldn't be penalized due to "theological uncertainties" about "sabbath observance."
Sins for which “cutting off” is penalty are temporary, symbolic, with possible exception of sabbath-breaking (Ex 31:14-15) and sexual crimes (Lev 18:29).
When death penalty wasn't given for murder in Bible, it was due to lack of legal human witnesses.
Case of woman caught in adultery is almost certainly not in original text, but probably happened.
Usurpation of authority of parents or state should be punished with corporal punishment (Deut 25:1-3).
Kidnappers should be executed.
In cases of parental child-beating and neglect, state may transfer guardianship to near relative (Ex 21:26-27).
Children who curse or strike parents or are incorrigible deserve death (Ex 21:15-17; Deut 21:18-21).
Rebellion against state deserves death (Deut 17:12).
In OT Israel, cursing someone was in sense of black magic rather than modern swearing.
If children curse or strike parents, and parents judge it to be limited attack on their authority, they should give corporal punishment. If it's serious attack, they should take child to civil authorities for death penalty.
State should administer punishment for crimes of bodily injury and murder. In modern society, relatives don't live close enough to avenge death, and land isn't handed down by inheritance in same way.
Parents may impose nonmoral household rules for proper functioning and wellbeing of household. Consequences for older children may be temporary loss of privileges or deductions against allowance. Similarly, state may impose nonmoral rules (e.g., speed laws) for protection and order, and impose monetary penalties.
Fools and young children need corporal punishment because they don't calculate more distant consequences of actions (Pro 10:13; 13:24; 22:15; 23:13-14; 26:3; 29:15).
Penalties for Sexual Crimes
For sex between unmarried, unengaged people, man must marry woman without possibility of divorce and pay cash or deduction from wages. If woman and her family refuse marriage, man still pays (Deut 22:28-29; Ex 22:16-17).
Closest modern equivalent of marriage present is alimony.
Sex between unmarried man and married woman has death penalty for both (Deut 22:22).
Prostitution is sin (Pro 6:26; Hos 4:14), but OT had no civil penalty because any child produced wouldn't confuse inheritance, male promiscuity didn't disrupt Israelite society in same way as adultery with married woman, and prostitute voluntarily gives herself, while married or engaged woman is under husband’s authority.
Promiscuous girl in Deut 22:20-21 is executed because she did it in her father’s house, undermining his authority.
Possible penalties for adultery
• Death
• Castration and payment
• Payment
• Divorce and payment (in money and property)
Best penalty for sex between married man and prostitute is likely divorce and payment (in money and property), but may be death in irremediable cases.
Best penalty for rape is likely castration, but may be death, plus payment of amount equal to marriage present.
Gang rape or rape with weapon deserves same penalty as kidnapping.
Within Church, unrepentant parent-child incest, homosexual practice, bestiality deserve excommunication. Outside Church, must be different penalty, maybe death (as in OT).
OT law never used prison, though other countries did (Gen 39:20).
God can change sexual orientation, but He never promises instant elimination of any temptation, only that it can be resisted (1 Cor 10:13). Christians must often resist temptations for a long time.
Deterrence and Rehabilitation
Time for rehab is between crime and punishment.
A Critique of Prisons
Prison may be used for custody before trial (Lev 24:12; Acts 21:34; 23:35). Time should be short. Bail prevents unjust confinement.
Our Responsibilities Toward Imperfect States
NT doesn't prohibit use of economic or political power, but teaches to live godly lives (Luke 3:12-14; 12:32-34; John 18:36; 1 Tim 6:17-19).
Private individuals may not revolt, but “popular magistrates” have duty to curb tyranny.
Christians may hold political office. Those who don't may participate in politics as skills and time allow (Eph 5:15-16).
We must sometimes vote for imperfect candidates and bills because their alternatives are worse.
Fulfillment of the Law in the Gospel According to Matthew
Principle of just recompense is still operative in NT (Mt 7:2, 12).
That Jesus fulfills law means it points to Him, and He has authority to confirm and advance it. He reiterated it and realized/fulfilled it (Mt 5:21-48). In some cases He “intensified” law; in others He “annulled” some element.
Great Commission shows law still has role in NT (Mt 28:18-20). “Everything I have commanded you” includes Sermon on Mount, where Christ reinforced law (Mt 5:18-19).
Matthew asserts continuation of law to show Jesus is true Messiah, but qualifies with fulfillment in Christ. Paul asserts abolition of law to emphasize unity of Jews and Gentiles in Christ, but qualifies in showing how law points to Christ. They fundamentally agree.
The law is abolished in the sense that the fulness has come and the temporary has come to an end. The law continues in the sense that seen in the light of Christ, it still speaks his word to us.There isn't a clean separation between moral and ceremonial in Matthew.
There are moral principles outside Ten Commandments (e.g., Lev 19:18), and some of Ten Commandments contain at least minor ceremonial or culturally specific elements.
Appendix A: False Worship in the Modern State
Christianity is to be spread, and false religion conquered, through spiritual, not physical or legal means (Jn 18:36; Mt 28:18-20; evangelism in Acts; Paul’s letters, e.g. Eph 6:10-20; Col 2:15; spiritual war in Rev).
Deut 13:1-18 and 17:2-7 don't give state authority to suppress false worship. Those passages are about holy war in Israel, and authority wasn't given to state, but to God’s holy people. Destruction of offender foreshadowed Christ's holy war against demonic spirits (Col 2:15).
States are only responsible for punishing offenses against people, not directly against God.
Farming during sabbath year was sin but not crime (Lev 25:1-7).
Crimes are offenses against people, and ought to punished by restoration and retribution paid to people, supervised by human courts.
Penalties aren't determined by how God is offended, but by how people are affected.
OT didn't require state to punish all sins.
In OT, sacrifices represented penalties paid to God, and other penalties dealt with offenses against humans.
False worship is offense against God, but not against people, so state doesn't have authority to punish it.
Attempted assassination or coup is attempt to destroy state, analogous to attempted murder, and deserves death penalty by state.
Forms of false worship involving crimes against people (e.g., such as human sacrifice, Satanic sexual rituals, slanderous blasphemies) are punishable by state.
In a sense God holds society responsible for offense of some, but in another sense He doesn't (Isa 1:16-28; Mic 3:9-12; Ezek 14:14, 20; Gen 18:22-33; 2 Pet 2:6-9). Christians must tell non-Christians of God’s standards and judgments (2 Pet 2:5; Gen 19:7, 9, 14; Dan 5:22-28; Jer 26). and work to establish just laws.
Appendix B: Evaluating Theonomy
Theonomy explained in By This Standard: The Authority of God’s Law Today by Bahnsen.
Other theonomists: Rushdoony, North
Not mixing seeds or fibers (Lev 19:19) was temporary law symbolizing orderliness, separation between holy and common (Ex 30:22-38; Deut 22:9).
God’s moral character is unchangeable, so moral norms are unchanging. But Israel as holy nation had ceremonial ordinances that expressed God’s character and norms adapted to unique situation.
Deut. 4:6-8 doesn't mean nations wanted OT Israel's laws per se, but that they would recognize how special God was, and how special His relationship with Israel.
There are discontinuities between OT Israel and us, so OT statues can't be directly carried over (Mic 4:1-2; Isa 40:5; Lk 24:44-49; Rom. 8:4).
Arguments against theonomy: Meredith Kline's “Comments on an Old-New Error” in Westminster Theological Journal 41 (1978-79) 172-89 and book The Structure of Biblical Authority.
Poythress says Kline probably influenced his view more than theonomists did.
Bibliography
Recommended works
• Leviticus by Wenham
• “Revelation in the Period of Moses” in Biblical Theology by Vos
• Images of the Spirit by Kline
• Toward Old Testament Ethics by Kaiser
February 9, 2009
Great presentation of the typology/symbolism of the Tabernacle under Moses. He gets into the details of the Levitical system and shows how much of this points to Christ. But he fails to show the cosmic and ecclesiastical significance of the Tabernacle. He also takes on Theonomy in one of the appendices, but I think fails in trying to blaze a middle-course between Theonomy and Kline's Intrusion Ethic. But he also had some good critiques of Theonomy, and the general mind-set of many theonomists, as well.
May 1, 2014
I'm not sure how one could read this book and not find many specifics he disagrees with, and yet, I'm not sure how in those very same instances one could read this book and not find Poythress extremely helpful in understanding how to read the Old Testament in the light of Christ.
October 29, 2009
Lots of ideas, but not much support for those ideas....better for brainstorming than for someone looking for answers
December 16, 2021
There is a lot in this book to appreciate and value highly. Poythress digs into the Mosaic Law, looking at the ceremonial and judicial laws. He offers thoughtful exegesis of them, giving the reader a very good sense of how these teachings functioned in the Old Testament, and he the connects them to their fulfilment in Christ.
This alone, I think, makes the book worth getting, because it's so strong.
But there are also some big weaknesses in my opinion. In Part 2, he digs into the judicial laws, particularly their penalties. Once again, at an exegetical level, there is a lot of good material. But when he gets into their application to the modern day, it becomes more problematic.
The problem that Poythress runs into is an assumption he makes about these judicial laws from the beginning that he never really defends. Namely, that the judicial laws are there as a revelation of Gods universal standards of justice for societies. That's a claim that you have to defend, because it's by no means obvious to me, a covenantal reader of Scripture, that what God desires from a nation that is in a special covenantal relationship with him can translate fairly directly to societies that God does not desire to covenant with (because his covenant people is a church and not a geo-political nation today). Nor has Poythress's assumption been obvious to the Reformed tradition at large, which has weighed in on the matter in WCF 19.4 and said these laws have "expired" and do not oblige obedience from societies today. In short, the Reformed tradition does not really agree that these laws as such should be assumed to carry over into today.
That conversation gets complicated because we do recognize in some of the laws principles of general equity. But there is also a thorough process of investigation that goes into identifying whether a particular law has this general equity or not.
Poythress does not interact with WCF 19.4 or really any of the old writers on these issues. This puts him at a disadvantage to make sense of continuity/discontinuity issues. And at times leaves him to offer inadequate analysis of the differences between Theonomy and a Reformed view of God's Law.
To be fair, Poythress does not call himself a theonomist, he expresses his disagreements with it, and includes a critique of it in an appendix. But I have heard theonomists refer to this book as "Theonomy lite," and I think that is fair, because he still makes the same basic theonomic move of assuming continuity between the judicial laws and today unless there is obvious reason not to. The only difference, I would say, is that he sees more obvious reasons not to see continuity in certain passages than your garden variety theonomist does.
This alone, I think, makes the book worth getting, because it's so strong.
But there are also some big weaknesses in my opinion. In Part 2, he digs into the judicial laws, particularly their penalties. Once again, at an exegetical level, there is a lot of good material. But when he gets into their application to the modern day, it becomes more problematic.
The problem that Poythress runs into is an assumption he makes about these judicial laws from the beginning that he never really defends. Namely, that the judicial laws are there as a revelation of Gods universal standards of justice for societies. That's a claim that you have to defend, because it's by no means obvious to me, a covenantal reader of Scripture, that what God desires from a nation that is in a special covenantal relationship with him can translate fairly directly to societies that God does not desire to covenant with (because his covenant people is a church and not a geo-political nation today). Nor has Poythress's assumption been obvious to the Reformed tradition at large, which has weighed in on the matter in WCF 19.4 and said these laws have "expired" and do not oblige obedience from societies today. In short, the Reformed tradition does not really agree that these laws as such should be assumed to carry over into today.
That conversation gets complicated because we do recognize in some of the laws principles of general equity. But there is also a thorough process of investigation that goes into identifying whether a particular law has this general equity or not.
Poythress does not interact with WCF 19.4 or really any of the old writers on these issues. This puts him at a disadvantage to make sense of continuity/discontinuity issues. And at times leaves him to offer inadequate analysis of the differences between Theonomy and a Reformed view of God's Law.
To be fair, Poythress does not call himself a theonomist, he expresses his disagreements with it, and includes a critique of it in an appendix. But I have heard theonomists refer to this book as "Theonomy lite," and I think that is fair, because he still makes the same basic theonomic move of assuming continuity between the judicial laws and today unless there is obvious reason not to. The only difference, I would say, is that he sees more obvious reasons not to see continuity in certain passages than your garden variety theonomist does.
September 16, 2022
This is part Bible study, part social commentary. The Bible parts are very informative: to the descriptions of the Tabernacle and the Law, to how Jesus reflects them later in the Gospels. Unfortunately, the social commentary almost ruins it for me. Nearly half the book is a discussion on just penalties for crimes and a call for prison reform. Interesting topics, but not what I'm here for. I skimmed those pages, and didn't read the appendices at all.
If you're looking for a true reflection of Jesus in the Hebrew scriptures, I recommend Christopher J.H. Wright's Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament instead.
If you're looking for a true reflection of Jesus in the Hebrew scriptures, I recommend Christopher J.H. Wright's Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament instead.
October 20, 2019
I was pretty excited to read this. And It met my expectations. That excitement may seem odd for a deep dive into OT theology but I have no regrets.
Though this book could almost be three distinct books with general unity instead of one book. But it works this way too. The three sections look at:
1. How the OT symbols (Tabernacle, Priests, etc.) point forward to Christ.
2. An interpretation of the OT penal codes and how Christ fulfilling the law changes (or doesn’t) the prescribed punishment.
3. How Christ fulfills the OT law.
There are also some solid appendices. One on of False Worship should be punished under a modern Christian state and one critiquing theonomy.
I bought it for part 2 and found part 1 to be wonderful. Which doesn’t detract from the rest.
Though this book could almost be three distinct books with general unity instead of one book. But it works this way too. The three sections look at:
1. How the OT symbols (Tabernacle, Priests, etc.) point forward to Christ.
2. An interpretation of the OT penal codes and how Christ fulfilling the law changes (or doesn’t) the prescribed punishment.
3. How Christ fulfills the OT law.
There are also some solid appendices. One on of False Worship should be punished under a modern Christian state and one critiquing theonomy.
I bought it for part 2 and found part 1 to be wonderful. Which doesn’t detract from the rest.
January 25, 2024
Great book. Poythress skillfully teases out the many types of Christ in the Mosaic law. You can tell yourself that you know 'all Scripture points to Christ' but seriously studying how precisely it does so is always a deep encouragement.
Poythress' appendix addressing theonomy is useful too. He argues for a Christocentric approach that both affirms the theonomist's foundational appreciation for the Mosaic law and critiques their exhaustive application of it. Some reviewers said that he basically accepts theonomy but they seem to have misunderstood Poythress' nuanced critique.
As others have noted, a weakness of this work may be that his prose feels a bit unengaging at times. Still a great book.
Poythress' appendix addressing theonomy is useful too. He argues for a Christocentric approach that both affirms the theonomist's foundational appreciation for the Mosaic law and critiques their exhaustive application of it. Some reviewers said that he basically accepts theonomy but they seem to have misunderstood Poythress' nuanced critique.
As others have noted, a weakness of this work may be that his prose feels a bit unengaging at times. Still a great book.
November 21, 2022
Read for NSA's MFA.
Did I spent a significant amount of my time reading this? No.
Did I feel the need to? No.
Let it be known that this was assigned for a Doug Wilson elective.
That said, Poythress communicates so, so clearly. He uses zero academic speech, in a highly academic work. That takes humility, intentionality, and constant revisions.
Every work of theology, imho, ought to be as readable as this.
One of the reasons it was so skimmable was thanks to Toby Sumpter's series on Leviticus he just finished up. This read similarly – thought which a little less panache and nuance and far more bullet points.
Did I spent a significant amount of my time reading this? No.
Did I feel the need to? No.
Let it be known that this was assigned for a Doug Wilson elective.
That said, Poythress communicates so, so clearly. He uses zero academic speech, in a highly academic work. That takes humility, intentionality, and constant revisions.
Every work of theology, imho, ought to be as readable as this.
One of the reasons it was so skimmable was thanks to Toby Sumpter's series on Leviticus he just finished up. This read similarly – thought which a little less panache and nuance and far more bullet points.
April 2, 2025
The shadow of Christ in the law of Moses, it’s just not a very good title for this book. It is at the beginning. Where it is a description of the laws and what they are shadows and types of. But near the end of the book and especially in the appendices the book becomes a polemic against theonomy. Specifically against the poster boy for theonomy, Bahsen. There is a little discussion about why theonomy and Post millennialism go hand-in-hand. All in all this book is a good overview with nuggets of wisdom into how to read the Old Testament.
May 14, 2020
Though I was a bit bored with the second part where he expounds the law as it relates to today's Justice system, the first part of the book and the final chapter are excellent. The connections to Christ and shadows he pulls out of the Pentateuch are excellent, makes me want to start reading those books. The idea of retribution and restoration in the law was a new concept for me and how that connects with Christ and his work was huge.
December 28, 2025
The beginning of this book was really good, lots of Christocentric symbols and understanding of how the structure of the tabernacle represents Jesus. Then there is a lot about how the law represents Christ, but also extended discussion of principles of the late and how it might be applied to a just society today. This was an interesting discussion, but lost some of the shadow of Christ. I was greatly helped by the appendix discussing theonomy and some of the problems with that.
November 17, 2020
This book was a rollercoaster. I loved the early sections on how Christ is prefigured in the priesthood, the tabernacle, and other sections of Mosaic literature. I had a hard time in the dense sections on the penalties of the Mosaic law and how that disagrees with modern prisons, but this was written back when theonomists roamed the earth so the pages spent on that make sense.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews