Theonomy vs. the Westminster Confession of Faith

For the past seven weeks I have been reading David McKay's book The Bond of Love, which I would recommend for anybody who's thinking of going to seminary or just wants to know how the Bible fits together. Today I reached Chapter 8 which is about The Way of Holiness. The last section pages 190 - 193 is about the law and society and talks about Theonomy and questions if its teachings are scriptural and confessional.

Professor McKay says "No!" to Theonomy and helpfully shows how a Theonomic interpretation of the Westminster Confession of Faith 19.4 makes that section have no actual meaning in a chapter end note numbered 60 on page 196. Professor McKay writes,

Theonomists who appeal to the Confession tend to interpret 'general equity' in such a way (i.e. embracing the detail of the laws) that they in effect reverse the Confession's statements about the laws having 'expired' and their 'not obligating any'.

The Confession says at 19.4,

To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

So what is Professor McKay actually suggesting in his end note? Well here's how we should read the section if Theonomists had their way (according to McKay):

To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which though they expired together with the State of that people, the general equity thereof requires obligation of all.

The changed words are in italics, and the meaning of this altered WCF is clearly different than what the Confession actually says. Though what's not so clear is why section four would have existed if the writers were Theonomic? I'll get into the question of if Theonomy is biblical in a later series of posts, but my point for this post is to ask if it's what the RPCNA, or any other church confessing the Westminster Standards actually clearly teaches or can allow? My argument, and the argument of Professor McKay, is an emphatic, "NO!"

Furthermore, over at The Confessional Outhouse, they have a helpful post (Doing Justice to Equity), which suggests the following change to WCF 19.4 as faithful to the original intent of the Standards,

To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the Natural Law thereof may require.

Now I realize the phrase "Natural Law" is can be a bit tricky to figure out. I also don't want to leave the impression that I agree with everything that's promoted at The Confessional Outhouse, but if we could agree that by the phrase "natural law" we mean only the Ten Commandments, also called the moral law (WCF 19.3, WLC Q. 93), and don't confuse the Ten Commandments with the Covenant of Works either, which was added to the moral law (WCF 4.2), we have pretty clear modern statement.

Sinclair Ferguson in his chapter, "An Assembly of Theonomists? The Teaching of the Westminster Divines on the Law of God" published in Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, on page 330 offers a slightly different rewording of 19.4 than McKay which is also helpful:

The Mosaic law has actually expired minimally: it remains obligatory and must be applied maximally.

I'm looking forward to having a book review series on Theonomy: A Reformed Critique soon, but it is interesting to note the publication date is 1990. Therefore, for at least over 20 years Ferguson has argued that it would be more honest to modify the Confession and hold to Theonomy than to have a secret meaning to 19.4 and then have to explain what the Confession "actually" must mean.
 
I am suggesting is that the term "general equity" had a long social context which, at least in America, is not easily understood currently. I actually plan to address the term "general equity" in a later post, but for now my best suggestion on understanding section four is,

To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the moral law thereof may require.

This suggestion actually keeps all the terms within the confession because section three defines the moral law. Thanks must go to my dad, Chris Stockwell, for reminding me about how Professor McKay's chapter end note exactly changes the wording of WCF 19.4.