Objections to theonomy

One of my friends, Jordan, raised some good questions and objections to theonomy. This is a copy of the email in response which I sent to him, with a few personal notes edited out.

—————————————–

Interesting points, with a few rebuttals from your less Covenant minded friend. You have not completely taken into account the portions of the law that refer to practices which the NT clearly says we need not follow, i.e. circumcision, animal sacrifices, etc.

Yep, I purposefully skipped over those because the post was already a little long. Theonomists would say that the sacrifices and separation laws do not continue in the new covenant for two reasons. First, as you say, the sacrifices did not themselves save, but rather they looked forward to the perfect sacrifice. Now that the perfect sacrifice has come, there is no need for any more sacrifices. Second, while the previous covenants had been with the people of Israel, this new covenant is with all people (Paul talks of no distinction between Jew or Gentile). There is no longer a separation by people group so no separation laws.

Or if it helps, view this not as an issue of OT -> NT continuity, but rather what the standard for human behavior is. The standard should be God’s law.

So if those sacraments are done away with, where does the rest of the law go? Can we pick and choose which parts of the law are still applicable and still hold power? I think not.

We’re not so much picking and choosing which parts still apply, but rather we assume it all still applies unless we have a good reason to disregard it. It would be fallacious to say that the civil law gets thrown out because the ceremonial law is now obsolete; they are two different categories.

The point here is that because of the salvation we have experienced and the love that God has chosen to show us, we obey his law – not Levitical, for the Levitical law only pointed forward to Christ and Christ has already come – but instead we follow the law He laid upon our hearts as well as the civil law of whatever nation we happen to reside in.

But the Levitical law is God’s law. I agree that we should obey the law which he inscribes on our hearts, but why would that law be any different than his revealed law? Furthermore, what if what two Christians believe to be the law as inscribed on their hearts is different? How do we determine who is right? Holding to individual, revealed law could quickly devolve into subjectivism.

I agree as well that we should follow the civil law of our respective nations, but we return to the question of “by what standard?” When we determine law, what standard do we use? The theonomist would answer: “God’s perfect Law.”

However when God was there what did he do? When the Christ was there he instead forgave her because of the shame and repentance in her heart. That’s justice from a Christ-One for the post OT era, and that’s how we should view the Law.

That instance cannot be viewed as normative, because if it is then we can disregard all law and punishment.

The role of God’s Law today

I’ve been reading through the Old Testament of late, trying to get a better feel for the basis for Covenant theology. While doing this, though, I’ve come to notice how much detail God pays to his Law which he gives Israel and the emphasis he places on the fact that it is his perfect Law.

I decided to check out a few different perspectives on the continuity/applicability of the Law in our current time, and came upon a familiar name: Greg Bahnsen, and again I find myself agreeing with his stance on the topic.

Growing up in an Evangelical Baptist home and church, I had always assumed that, while the OT Law was good for the Israelites, it was somehow no longer applicable for today’s Christians. Upon reading some articles by Bahnsen and a few other theologians, however, I cannot see how anything but the opposite could be the case.

Bahnsen et al teach a position called “theonomy;” theos meaning “God” and nomy meaning “law” so that it is literally “God’s law.” The question which Rushdoony, a theonomist, famously asked — “by what standard should governmental law be determined?” — is answered by the theonomist by saying that the “general equity” of the civil Law should be legislated.

What is meant by the “general equity” of the Law, then? Quite simply it means that the principles of justice outlined in the civil law of the OT should be legislated by government. A classic example is the case of the OT requiring railings around roofs of houses. The principle which theonomists would advocate is that accidental injury and death should be properly avoided. The current day application would then be things such as fencing swimming pools, building codes, etc.

A few initial objections may be made. First, if we look to the punishments for crimes outlined in the OT civil law, we may be tempted to think that they are overly harsh. The simple response is to remind ourselves of the creator of the law: God. We can be assured that the punishment which he commands is perfectly just.

Second, we may object by pointing to Luke where we are told that the Gospel fulfills the Law. The answer is again quite simple: fulfill does not mean abrogate. Fulfillment of the Law means that those incapable of themselves fulfilling it (i.e., everyone) can find fulfillment in Christ. It does not remove the law. An argument ad absurdum could also be used here to say that if fulfilled means abrogated then Christians are not bound to any law.

Third, we may initially wonder if theonomists advocate the overthrow of government to be able to legislate these laws. As far as I know, no theonomist does advocate civil war, but they do say that we should try to work through government to make these laws a reality.

Fourth, we may object by saying that the OT law was given only to the Israelites or Christians; it is unfair to hold non-Christians or Gentiles to that law. This, however, is not the example given in the OT. God, numerous times, judges people or nations outside of the theocracy of Israel for not obeying his commandments. This is seen in the judgment of Sodom and Gommorrah (Gen. 18:20), and when God destroys the Canaanites for their lawlessness (Lev. 18:24-27).

I’ll close by asking that same question which Rushdoony asked: “by what standard?” If we do not establish laws by God’s perfect standard, then by what standard do we establish them? We must base our laws upon the general equity of OT civil law. I cannot see any other position to take biblically or logically.