This brief paper examines four commonly-used arguments to defend
theonomy. They are employed frequently in the literature of the
Christian Reconstructionist movement, as well as by individuals
in personal discussion. Although I have made no effort to
document
these arguments, those familiar with theonomy should recognize
that I have attempted to represent them fairly. It is hoped that
the brief responses given here will enable the non-theonomist
to hold his own in future discussions and debates when he or she
encounters those of the theonomic persuasion.
1. The "No other standard" argument
Where else can we find God's standards for socio-political
justice, except in Scripture, particularly, the Mosaic civil
legislation?
If we reject the divinely-revealed civil law, we are left with
no other standard, condemned to wander in a fog of personal bias
and subjective relativism.
One way to respond to this argument is to question the assumption
that Scripture is a sufficient source of guidance for societal
and political questions. No doubt the Bible contains many general
principles that are to be observed, but why should it be regarded
as a detailed blueprint for society? After all, we don't go to
the Bible to find specific directions for other equally
important human endeavors, such as art and architecture,
literature,
the culinary arts, medicine, technology, etc. The Westminster
Confession acknowledges that there are areas of life "which
are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian
prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are
always to be observed" (WCF I.6).
The "No other standard" argument assumes that special
revelation
in Scripture is the only divinely-approved standard for questions
pertaining to civil government and legislation. Any other
standard
would of necessity involve a reliance on mere human ideas instead
of God's, and that is nothing less than autonomy. The difficulty
with this assumption is that it proves too much. If autonomy is
narrowly defined as the use in any sphere of ideas not
specifically
revealed in Scripture, then we will be paralyzed by inaction,
since the Scripture simply contains very little information about
vast areas of human thought and action. Scripture is not
sufficient
for the art of cologne and perfume manufacture, although one
particular
recipe is given in the Mosaic law (Exod. 30:23-25). Does that
mean we should only make the Levitical perfume? Are all other
non-Biblical scents autonomous and sinful? What about the proper
treatment of leprosy? Are all attempts of modern medicine to find
a cure to be rejected in favor of the specific guidelines laid
down in the Mosaic case law (Lev. 13-14)? Examples such as these
could be multiplied.
It seems too obvious to point out, but the Bible was never
intended
to provide specific information and guidance regarding the vast
majority of human spheres of thought and action. These common
grace spheres belong to the natural order and are pretty much
up to us to figure out on our own using the common sense, reason,
and scientific abilities that God has given to mankind. It is
not denied that the Bible contains general principles that apply
to all areas of life - the most important being, "Whether
you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of
God" (1 Cor. 10:31). But the Scripture is not sufficient
to provide practical, detailed guidance for the sphere of common
grace; that sphere is to be guided by "the light of
nature."
Properly defined, the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture
states that the Bible is "the only rule of faith and
obedience," (WLC # 3), directing us "how we may
glorify and enjoy" God (WSC # 2). The Scriptures
"principally
teach what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty
God requires of man" (WSC # 3). In other words, as Paul
states,
the primary purpose of Scripture is to "make us wise unto
salvation through
faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:15).
2. The argument from Matt. 5:17-19
Jesus says that he came not to destroy but to confirm the law
- down to the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet and least
stroke of a scribe's pen. Our Lord also declared that anyone who
taught that the least commandment has been abrogated will be
called
least in the kingdom. Dare we assert that any of the Old
Testament
laws, including the civil laws, have become obsolete unless we
have an express declaration from God himself?
First, we have an exegetical objection to this argument. The
Greek
word pleroo (v. 17) almost never means "to
confirm"
but "to fulfill." This is borne out by the fact that
the next verse (v. 18) uses the synonymous expression, "when
all comes to pass," which fits in very well with Matthew's
theme of the coming of the kingdom as an eschatological
fulfillment
rather than a merely legislative reinforcement. Recall the
recurring
refrain of the first gospel: "Now all this was done that
it might be fulfilled (pleroo) which was spoken of the
Lord by the prophet, saying …" (Matt. 1:22; cp. 2:15,
17, 23; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:14, 35; 21:4; 24:34; 26:54, 56;
27:9, 35).
Second, even if the theonomic interpretation of Matt. 5:17-19
were proven to be correct, it does not prove the specific thesis
that the Old Testament civil law should be enforced by civil
government
today. Theonomy rests on the assumption that the civil law was
given to Israel to be a model for all other civil
governments.
But is this so? Was Israel's existence as a national and
political
entity intended to function as a standard for all the national
and political entities of the world, past, present and future?
The answer is readily available: Israel was told that if the
demands
of the covenant were faithfully met, then Israel would be God's
"own possession among all the peoples, a kingdom of priests
and a holy nation" (Exod. 19:5-6). But if Israel was set
apart from the nations of the earth by a special covenant
relationship that made her "a peculiar people," then
Israel's theocratic political organization did not function as
a model for the nations to imitate but as a typological
foreshadowing
of the coming kingdom of Christ: "You are a chosen race,
a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own
possession"
(1 Pet. 2:9), and "He has made us to be a kingdom, priests
to His God and Father" (Rev. 1:6).
Third, we do not necessarily need an explicit declaration from
God telling us whether each Old Testament law is still in effect
or abrogated in the New Covenant. Do we have a clear statement
anywhere in the NT to the effect that we are no longer commanded
to offer incense in worship? Are we still forbidden to wear
garments
containing mixed fabrics (Lev. 19:19)? Are all Christian couples
in sin today if they enjoy sexual relations during the wife's
menstrual period (Lev. 18:19)? If your brother dies are you still
required to raise up seed for him by taking his wife? Since God
has never revoked or modified the boundaries of the land promised
to Israel, should we encourage Israel to take back the West Bank
by military force? Not even theonomy would answer yes to these
questions. There are no explicit proof-texts in Scripture stating
that these specific case laws have changed. Yet we know they are
no longer binding because the entire Mosaic system has been
fulfilled
in Christ in such a way that it need not be literally observed
by Christians today. Such an argument is based on a general
consideration
of the overall progression of redemptive history: now that the
shadows of the Old Covenant have been fulfilled and replaced by
the arrival of the Word made flesh, they are no longer definitive
of the church's practice (John 1:14-18; 2:19-22; 4:20-26; Acts
15:13-21; Gal. 3:19; 4:1-11; Col. 2:16-23; Heb. 7:12; 8:13; 9:8-
10;
10:1).
3. The bestiality argument
If you reject the validity of the Mosaic case law, then you
have no basis for asserting that bestiality is contrary to God's
will. The only way we know that God abhors bestiality is because
He has revealed this in Exodus 22:19.
This argument is called a reductio ad absurdum. It
attempts
to make the opposition look foolish by showing that the rejection
of the proposed thesis leads to absurdity if taken to its logical
conclusion. The idea is that if you reject the civil law, then
you will of necessity be forced to conclude that one of those
civil laws, Exodus 22:19, is no longer binding today. But if you
throw out this verse, then you are left without any proof-text
anywhere in the Bible in which God prohibits bestiality.
The reply here is to turn the tables on the theonomist: "On
what basis can you say that pornography is sinful?"
If he answers, "Pornography is included in the general
Biblical
prohibitions against sexual immorality" (zana in
Hebrew = porneia
in the NT), you gently suggest that the same would be true of
bestiality.
One of the
many problems with theonomy is that it has a positivistic view
of law:
only that which is specifically stated to be unacceptable
to God is sinful. But that just isn't the way the moral will of
God works.
The Bible never says that cheating on your income tax is sin.
But we know it is, because cheating on your income tax is a form
of stealing. And stealing is not an act of love, for love does
no harm to its neighbor (Rom. 13:10). We don't have to have a
specific
verse for each and every imaginable sin to know it is sin.
4. The Romans 13 argument
Paul says that the civil magistrate has been authorized by
God to punish the wrongdoer and to reward those who do good.
Where
does the civil magistrate find divinely-approved, just standards
for determining who is a wrongdoer, and what his punishment
should
be, if not in the Mosaic civil law?
First, the civil magistrate has access to the same moral will of
God as
all men. Paul teaches that the Gentiles, though they did not
historically
have access to the specific details of the Mosaic legislation,
are nevertheless without excuse before God, since they have "the
work of
law written on their heart" (Rom. 2:12-15). Apart from special
revelation the unregenerate know the basic content of the moral
will of God, even if they claim to deny it at certain points or
distort
it to excuse their own sin. By common grace - God's merciful
bridle
preventing man from expressing the full potential of his total
depravity - pagans display much true ethical knowledge, as well
as ethical behavior (Rom. 1:18-32; 1 Cor. 5:1). Total depravity
will exert its force to twist and suppress that knowledge, to
be sure, but it will not totally eliminate it as long as men are
still made in the image of God (James 3:9). Thus, the civil
magistrate,
whether Christian or non-Christian, has sufficient resources for
distinguishing between good and evil, at least in principle, in
order to discharge his God-given responsibility of punishing
criminals
without needing to appeal directly to the covenantal revelation
of the law given to Israel.
Second, not only does the civil magistrate have sufficient
ethical
resources apart from the Mosaic civil law, Biblical teaching
actually
prohibits the civil magistrate from enforcing the
covenantally-specific
legislation God revealed to Israel. This follows from the fact
that the civil law given to Israel was theocratic in nature. In
the Israelite theocracy certain sins were defined as covenant-
breaking
(like idolatry and sorcery) and were punishable by capital
excommunication
- being cut off from the people by means of the death penalty.
But it is
apparent that this
theocratic intolerance of covenant-breaking is inappropriate for
implementation by the nations of the world, none of which can
rightly claim to have been covenantally set apart by a special,
redemptive act of divine providence as was Israel.
Furthermore, if the theocratic ideal were applied in such non-
holy,
non-covenanted nations, it would necessitate the destruction of
all its population except for those fortunate enough to be
members
of those Christian denominations sanctioned by the state as
legitimate.
Not only does the state lack the competence to make such
determinations,
but Scripture never grants the state such authority in the first
place (Matt. 22:21; Rom. 13:1-7). In fact, it is just when the
state
begins to assume theocratic pretensions that it becomes,
inevitably,
a persecuting state properly identified in Scripture not as the
kingdom of Christ but Babylon, in whom is found the blood of the
prophets and the saints (Rev. 18:24; 17:6).
Finally, for Christians today to desire the state to wield the sword on behalf of the church is not only imprudent but singularly incompatible with our Lord's commission to the church to proclaim the gospel of eternal life to the nations and to bring honor to that gospel by good deeds of mercy and love. "For God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through Him" (John 3:17). Our message is that "the kindness of God our Savior and his philanthropy for mankind has appeared" (Titus 3:4). To be sure, we warn all men of the impending wrath that awaits all who do not turn from their sin and put their faith in Christ. But that wrath is presently on hold, because God's patience is intended to lead men to salvation (2 Pet. 3:9, 15). Thus, the theocratic nature of Israel's civil law makes its implementation by the civil magistrate today inappropriate, for such a program would be at cross- purposes with the church's present evangelistic mission in the world. Indeed, it would be at cross-purposes with God's own attitude of patience toward the unbelieving world as expressed in the fact that he has thus far chosen to delay the day of judgment.
© 2007 Lee Irons