It’s been a while since I’ve dealt with Theonomy; largely because the main contenders have resumed their lives outside of Blogorrhea (as crazy as it may seem that there is a possibility of life outside of Blogorrhea)! But we do still chat in other venues, and Jeff said “you should blog this, and see what other people think,” so here goes.

A Theonomist was preaching about the Westminster standards, and his scriptural justification consisted of all of the “landmark” verses. His real point, based on Hosea 5:10, is that the confessional standards serve as doctrinal landmarks which should not be lightly tampered with. But as a side note before he got going, he tossed off his theonomic perspective that property boundary markers should be considered (in the words of Calvin) “as if they were sacred“, and thus property taxes, inheritance taxes, zoning laws, and Eminent Domain are all unscriptural violations of authority on the part of earthly governments. I brought this up with Jeff, and he agreed that Eminent Domain is nothing but theft and socialism.

First off, I think that Calvin was wrong to apply the term “sacred” to boundary markers outside of OT Israel. In the promised land, God himself laid out the boundaries, subdividing for tribes and families. Those boundaries were indeed sacred, but obviously those boundaries were also invalidated by God himself when the Old Covenant was made obsolete. In order to partly vindicate my boy J.C., I would put lots of emphasis on the “AS IF” and less on the word “sacred”. (Similarly, the doctrinal standards of Westminster are obviously not sacred, and I wouldn’t even say they should be treated “as if they were sacred.”)

Next, let’s take a look at Leviticus 25, in which laws concerning the “Year of Jubilee” makes a lot clear about the promised land. First of all, Israelites could not sell their family land even if they wanted to: v23 God says, “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine. For you are strangers and sojourners with me.” People have the right to buy back family property they have sold whenever they are able (v25-27), and they are guaranteed (v28) to receive back their property in the Year of Jubilee (every 50 years). As a matter of fact, even though the words “buy” and “sell” are used, it is pretty clear that (if it were available from Hebrew) a more appropriate word would be “lease”. As v15-16 explain, purchase price is to be justly determined based on years until the Jubilee: “If the years are many, you shall increase the price, and if the years are few, you shall reduce the price, for it is the number of the crops that he is selling to you.” I.e. there are no actual land sales, but land leases, with a God-given requirement for all leases to expire every 50 years.

It is very interesting to note that (v29-30) city property is exempt from Jubilee; after a one-year “cooling-off-period”, “the house in the walled city shall belong in perpetuity to the buyer, throughout his generations; it shall not be released in the jubilee.” Arguably, we all live in city property these days, so even if the sacredness of property boundaries were to have some general equity today, it would apply only to farmland, not residential property.

Now let’s turn to Naboth’s vineyard in 1 Kings 21. At a superficial level, this appears to be an indictment of the principle of eminent domain. The government wants to force a citizen to sell his private property for fair market value, and is condemned for it. But closer inspection reveals that has nothing to do with eminent domain. First of all, it is not so much that the government wants private property, as much as a person who happens to be a powerful King covets his neighbor’s possessions. The definition of Eminent Domain requires that the property be for public use, not private use. See for instance Amendment V in the bill of rights: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” No mention there of private property taken for private use, and that’s all Ahab wanted. He wanted to own the nice vineyard he always saw from his palace window, because he wanted space for a vegetable garden.

Also, note the reason that Naboth declined Ahab’s offer to buy the vineyard, or even exchange it for a better vineyard. “The LORD forbid that I should give you the inheritance of my fathers.” In other words, he was citing Lev 25, and saying “it would be sinful for me to sell you the vineyard, because God said it belongs to my family in perpetuity.”

Now up to this point, I have given a lot of reasons why arguments that might be made from the Bible against Eminent Domain, would be misapplied. So my perspective is, since I don’t see the Bible forbidding Eminent Domain, then Eminent Domain is OK. But the Theonomist perspective works from the other direction: Since I see the Bible saying that, at one time, personal property boundaries were actually sacred, lacking further instructions we should still consider them to be sacred (or “as if” they were sacred). It’s related to the Theonomist assumption that, since God established the OT society of Israel, it must be the model to which all societies must strive to conform. But the purpose of Israel was not to serve as a template for earthly societies; rather it was all a shadow of Christ!

This reminds me of the “Challenge to Theonomists” (hat tip: Echo).

Bahnsen’s presumption of continuity rests on a solid impulse. The civil law can’t just disappear. But to presume there must be continuity between Old Testament civil law and something in New Testament reality is worlds away from presuming continuity between that law and secular, modern government. That’s as wrongheaded and far-fetched as presuming continuity between leprosy laws and modern medicine, between mildew laws and Hints from Heloise. …

Let us presume for a moment that Bahnsen’s presumption of continuity between the civil law and modern, secular government is valid. The continuity between Israel and the Kingdom of God is surely more basic and fundamental. Yet almost nothing has been written to explain the typological significance of the civil law and its antitypical fulfillment in Christ. [RR: this has been written] This need is more pressing than further defense of a secondary continuity, never mentioned in Scripture, but presumed. As Theonomists discover the glories of the primary continuity, they will have less and less interest in any secondary continuity. Eventually they will realize they have no need for a secondary continuity. Their theological lives are happy and fulfilled without it. Then they will be in the right frame of mind to reconsider the doctrine of secondary continuity. And having lost their need, they will realize their belief had been based on an insatiable desire rather than on the compulsion of Scripture. But that desire will find itself satisfied to abundance in Christ the King.

Let the Theonomist who dares take up this challenge. He will not remain a Theonomist for long.

[ Update: as Wacky Fundamentalist notes below, when I say "Eminent Domain", I am actually referring to a concept inside my head which I find to be a just principle, and if you were inside my head, there's a chance you might too. I realize that however Eminent Domain currently works in our laws (and as Forester notes, as recently adjudicated on by our Supreme Court) is quite probably not ideal, but not being a lawyer, I am not informed as to specifically how actual ED deviates from ideal. Read the thread below to get more of an idea of what I think would be ideal]

I promised a “major concession“, so here it is.

The (Westminster Confession’s) distinction between ‘duty to God’ and ‘duty to man’ does not justify the exclusion of first-table laws from enforcement by the civil magistrate.

[Secondary concession: Before I continue, let me throw another bone to the Theonomists: Echo, in comments like this:

There can be only one reason for insisting that the law of God be enforced by the civil magistrate. It MUST be the case that you think this will make the people underneath those laws more holy, otherwise there’s no point.

shows that he doesn't understand the Theonomist's true position, and also proves too much (as Wacky also notes): asserting that making people more holy is the only possible reason to enforce God's law precludes the civil magistrate from enforcing any laws at all -- even murder. But I think it is pretty clear that the reason to enforce "Thou shall not murder", is not to make people more holy, but to make people less dead. Sidebar over]

Back to the point, I now realize that there is no clear-cut distinction between the two tables wrt sins against man and sins against God. Everybody agreed beforehand that second table sins are against both God and man, and first table sins are against God. And previously I denied that first table sins were sins against man. But consider this Wacky little counterexample:

Let’s say someone at your church sought to try to get you to believe heresy. If you did, you’d be out of the covenant community, and on your way to hell. Now, how is that not a sin against you?

Touche. Finally, somebody was able to convince me that first table sins are potentially sins against man — and it only took two sentences! I think what made it click for me was putting it in the context of the church. Myself, I don’t feel threatened or sinned against by Mormons or JWs or Hare Krishnas, but seduction to heresy from within the church is quite obviously a sin against one’s covenant neighbor.

It so happens the New Testament is quite clear on how to handle one that does this: “let him be accursed.” As Calvin comments,

This word, which we render accursed , doth not signify ‘accursed or condemned of God to the punishments of another world.’ This the Apostle would not wish to the worst of men. The meaning is, ‘Let him be as a person excommunicated, or wholly cut off from the synagogue, or church, with whom it is unlawful to have any commerce or correspondence whatever.’

Later in Galatians, Paul repeats his condemnation with a pun:

O that even they would cut themselves off who are unsettling you!

(The pun uses the Mosaic catchphrase “cut off” from Israel to describe what the circumcisers should do to themselves).

So it’s clear that covenant members who commit this first table sin against their neighbor, are to be expelled from the covenant. But what about those outside? In 1 Cor 5, Paul echoes another Mosaic catchphrase (“Purge the evil person from among you“). This is in the immediate context of juxtaposing the church’s responsibility to excommunicate sinning brethren, against the inevitability of rubbing shoulders with sinners (both tables) out in the world. Key verse:

For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside.

In other words, “Civil Magistrate, you’re on your own.” (I won’t go into that all over again, because I’m happy with how I treated it last time).

Which brings me to my new understanding of jurisdiction wrt God’s law. Theonomists & non- both agree that the civil magistrate is not to regulate sins of the heart, but only outward sins. Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart. Obviously,

If man is not able to see sin X, man is not able to judge sin X (~P=>~Q)

It is beyond this point that Theonomists commit the logical fallacy of confusing the contrapositive (valid deduction) with the converse (invalid deduction). It is logically correct to conclude that

If man is able to judge sin X, then man is able to see sin X (Q=>P),

but foundational to the Theonomist’s system is the logically incorrect conclusion

If man is able to see sin X, man is able to judge sin X (P=>Q)

So, bringing me all the way back to my concession, the true distinction between what part of God’s law lies within man’s jurisdiction, and what part is reserved only to God, it’s not duty to man vs. God, and it’s not even sins of the hand vs. heart. The critical distinction lies with the reason behind heart-sins being judged only God: man is unable to judge heart sins. Obviously, man is well able to judge many outward sins. Even an unregenerate man can determine, from the testimony of witnesses (and the testimony of mute witnesses like forensic crime scene evidence, written documentation, etc.) whether one man murdered another man, or slept with a woman not his wife, or stole another man’s property.

But unregenerate man is unable to discern between true worship and false worship; unable to discern the distinctions between blasphemy, heresy, and mere theological disagreement. That’s why the responsibility for “all matters of the Lord” were given to the priesthood, and “all the king’s matters” put under a Judge (2 Chr 19:11). That was yesterday. Today “matters of the Lord” are still reserved for the nation of priests (who are not given the physical sword), and tomorrow for the Great High Priest to pronounce eternal judgment Himself.

God gave only his priests the ability to judge in “all matters of the Lord” (his regenerating Holy Spirit enables that judgment) but in the New Covenant, he did not give his priests the authority to judge with the sword. On the other hand, God gave the authority of the  sword to all men to regulate themselves civilly, and in his common grace he gave all men the ability to judge a subset of sins (which subset has a large correlation with outward sins against neighbor, which is why I was previously confused), but he did not give them the ability (and therefore not the right or jurisdiction) to judge all outward sins. To sum up (in Jon Stewart a la George Dubya Bush style) when it comes to “matters of the Lord” in the New Covenant, Priests — ability, no sword! Heathen — sword, no ability!

Thus the only possible way to enforce 1st table sanctions like they did in Israel, is to get the people with the ability into the role that has the authority. The problem then becomes, if a Christian is made a judge, he doesn’t get to enforce a new set of laws that he deems just; he has to enforce the laws already on the books. And getting new laws on the books, which have the just Christian standards required, would require codifying Christianity into earthly, civil law. Enacting such laws at all violates the borderless, not-of-this-earth nature of the one and only holy nation of Christ. Enacting and enforcing such laws justly violates I Cor 5:12-13, because it requires the judgment of the Church.

So in conclusion, I reissue a challenge to Theonomists (I can’t find any originals around the blog, but they might be from other email or conversational contexts):

Draft a civil death-penalty law against subversion to false worship which is not specifically Christian.

Go ahead, there should be no reason consistent Theonomists shouldn’t hold a convention to draft this law right now, and work the initiative process to get it enacted ASAP. You shouldn’t have to worry about constitutionality — I’m sure you’ll be able to convince the voting public that your law is not “Christian”, but “just just”:

Having a government that reflects these requirements would not force society into being ‘Christian,’ just just (figured I’d leave the pun) or righteous.

It is true that today, it is the Christian church that God has ordained to handle His special oracles. Still, what I say above stands. There is nothing so specific in the laws God requires of the state the would make the state look so specifically Christian. The state would look just as “Jewish” or just plain old “righteous” even though it is the Christian church now informing the state.

(Before you just cut&paste the 1st commandment and say that, once society is Christianized enough, we will be able to require that only Christians be judges — know that you are pre-emptively disqualified for cheating, since such a requirement itself would codify Christianity specifically into the law.)

Once you realize that false worship cannot be meaningfully or usefully defined without codifying true worship into the law (thus making the law, and the nation, specifically Christian), maybe you will stop pussyfooting around the fact that what you really want is an earthly Christian nation, and stop equivocating (here, and a few subsequent comments) about what it means for the state to judge God’s laws independently from the church.

Just man up (like Ron has) that what theonomy is talking about is not church/state separation, but church-over-state hierarchy, and then our discussion will finally end.

From the forerunner (and as quoted by Gene Cook on the 11/14/06 Narrow Mind webcast)

How would Christian Reconstructionism [AKA Theonomy] define “freedom of religion”? Is it an “inalienable right” to be protected by the government?

Any person — Jew, Moslem, Catholic, Protestant — would be free in a Biblically Reconstructed society under the civil law to worship. The civil government has no power to restrict religion. The civil government has an obligation to see that all people obey the moral law as it falls into civil jurisdiction. Thus religious expressions which contradict the Ten Commandments would not be publicly tolerated. The domain of the church is to preach truth. Because Reconstructionists are postmillennialists, we believe that eventually, organized false religions will become rare, if not extinct. This will be accomplished mainly through the efforts of the church, not the state.

So I guess at least partly the extinction of organized false religions will come about through the efforts of the state?

But don’t worry — you see, you shouldn’t be afraid that Theonomy hopes to spread the gospel by the sword. All they’re talking about is that the state will use the sword to clearcut non-Christians from the public arena, so that all other voices would be “forced into hiding“, and the gospel could be preached freely (but not by the sword).

I wonder if any state has ever before refused to tolerate public religious expressions which contradict the state religion? I wonder if any state has ever before forced non-Christians into hiding?

Don’t be squeamish, though, about the task before us. The state of Israel was required to suppress enemies of their religion; therefore, a Christian nation is required to suppress enemies of the gospel, right?

The Theonomy debate finally happened. About 60 men gathered in the very chilly SoCal mountain night air to eat Hoagies, smoke Stogies, drink homebrew, and hear a debate. The specific debate question was

Does the Civil Magistrate today have the responsibility to enforce the first table of the Decalogue?

Our good friend Jeff “Not-a-Sith” Kazules argued in the affirmative, and our new friend Gene “Unchained” Cook in the negative. Both speakers represented their positions well, and everybody enjoyed the debate. You will enjoy it too, if you download it right now! The debate proper (65 minutes) and the Q&A (90 minutes) can be downloaded for free from UnchainedRadio.com (for now, and for a small fee after it expires from the podcast).

Here I have some post-debate reflections, including a number of verses that I was saving up, because I didn’t want to post them earlier and distract Jeff from his preparation.

First off, Jeff has always maintained that the state is not responsible to enforce sins of the heart, only crimes of the hand. To this end, Jeff was careful to distinguish between idolatry/false worship (which would remain an open option to unbelievers in a theonomic society), and subversion to idolatry/false worship (which would be penalized by death). So for instance, there would still be Mormons, but they wouldn’t be allowed proselytize in any way. That’s kind of Jeff to allow, and it makes his position an iota easier to argue, but in the end, I still can’t swallow it. Are we to believe that Israel was only allowed to put to death idolaters amongst themselves if the idolaters had sent out invitations? If the Israelites discovered false worship being performed in secret (or in the open, like a public Mormon worship service), were they supposed to let it go, if the offenders said the magic words “but we’re not encouraging you to join us”? What happened in the Bible, in this excellent example of God’s law (and due process) in action, when Israel “heard” that the trans-Jordanian tribes had set up a giant altar?

Second, many times during the debate, Jeff attempted the reductio ad absurdem of “can it be that a standard of law and punishment is just on one side of a line, but not just if you jump across a border to the other side of a line?” Well how about this line between “cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance” (for which the Lord prescribed “you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall devote them to complete destruction”), and “the cities that are very far from you, which are not cities of the nations here,” (for which the Lord allows to Israel: “you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you”)?

More to the point, the Theonomist often attempts to soften the apparent harshness of his position by saying “such laws are not appropriate for today, but for a (postmillenial) future in which society has become [majority/largely/completely] Christian.” To that concept I say, how can it be that a standard of law and punishment is just on the far side of a dateline in which society is 51% (90%? 99%?) Christian, but not just right here and right now?

Bahnsen has written books titled By This Standard, and No Other Standard. If I ever write a book about Theonomy, then I would title it No Other Nation, as in “What other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today?” (Deut 4:8) The answer to this rhetorical question is “None!” See also Ps 147:19-20.

2 Chr 19:11 is often used by Theonomists to demonstrate separation of church and state in Israel. I see it as a refutation of the Theonomic assertion that the first table cannot be separated from the second table. Some laws belong to the king, and some laws belong to the priesthood. In any case, Israel’s church/state separation is not all that clean. In this passage, the (non-priestly) Levites are shown to stand in the gap — and as I learned from Bahnsen himself, the Levites had a mix of religious and political roles. For instance here and here the Levites had to step in and participate in the priestly duty of offering sacrifices. Here David (not even a Levite!) bypassed the priests, offering his own sacrifices and receiving the divine stamp of approval of fire from heaven. Here Jehoiada the Priest crosses the line to become a kingmaker. Bahnsen says this intervention was necessary to show the people that the usurpation of Athaliah was wrong, because how else could the people know? (They seemed to know here though…). Here priests and judges are to decide cases together.

How’s this for an illustration of the principle that the unregenerate masses are not to be held to the full standard of all of God’s law? How’s this for a commandment?

Whew! Now I’ve gotten that out of my system. I think I’m done with Theonomy now. Let me close with one final rejoinder: The Old Covenant saw God’s law written on tablets of stone. The New Covenant saw that law written on tablets of flesh — our hearts. The Theonomist says, “Let’s try paper!”

[Addendum] Was with Ron and Jeff last night, and I think they must have been frustrated about the debate, because they took out on me what Jeff couldn’t do against Gene! And all the other non-theonomic brothers that were there stood by and let me get creamed! Good thing I wasn’t debating Saturday night, because I totally froze. Now that I’m in the safety of my own bully pulpit, however, I can look all big and authoritative again, so let me add some more things:

First of all, in fairness, I have to mention Gene’s one colossal error in the debate: when Jeff asked him if he would vote against a law forbidding subversion to idolatry, Gene said NO! Which totally contradicted his position! He made a partial save later, when Ron questioned him on this, and he said he would not support a Supreme Court justice with an agenda to execute sabbath-breakers. But I’m really surprised Jeff failed to explosively capitalize on this heinous error.

In related news, it turns out that, despite Jeff’s “very clear” emphasis that Theonomic laws are not meant to regulate man’s heart, but only his outward actions, it turns out that in his (& Ron’s) dream Theonomic society, not only would Mormons be executed for door-to-door subversion-to-idolatry, they would also be executed for public worship, even if they are not inviting others to join them. For the same reason that a whorehouse doesn’t need to advertise.

OK, back to Theonomy-bashing:

First, an excellent point that I heard Gene make on the debate CD about 5 seconds after I turned on the car to leave Ron’s place last night: What is the new priesthood? In 2 Chr 19:8-11 (linked also above), we see that in Israel, the Priests and Levites were to “give judgment for the Lord…in all matters of the Lord”, and the judges to “decide disputed cases…in all the king’s matters”. So in the New Covenant, who is responsible to give judgment in all matters of the Lord? What is the new priesthood? We the church are a nation of priests, and the church has the responsibility of judging the moral law among its members. Who is the new high priest? Jesus Christ is our high priest forever, and will judge all men according to the moral law in the end.

Here’s a question that I flubbed with Jeff and Ron: What does the Bible have to say to the civil magistrate? Here’s the right answer: Exactly what it says to every man: repent! Turn in your heart of stone, and accept from God a heart of flesh, so you can obey all of God’s law, externally as well as interally. The Bible NEVER says improve yourself (or your nation) by obeying outward laws. A secondary answer was the same as from my questioning of Jeff at the debate. Paul’s message to the civil magistrate in I Cor 5:12-13: “You’re on your own!”

Finally, Jeff mentioned many different flavors of “nations are required to be righteous”. Apart from Gene’s correct interpretation of this concept as nations=gentiles=world outside of Israel, meaning in the New Covenant, all the earth must submit to Jesus Christ or be destroyed in the final judgment — apart from that, the obvious response is this: if nations are required to be righteous, then outward, civil laws are not going to do the job, any more than outward obedience makes a sinful heart righteous. Sure, a nation may be unrighteous because of excessive idolatry, adultery, etc. But enforcing laws that prevent people from idolizing, adulterating, etc., does not make the nation any less unrighteous! It just makes them pharisees. (And note that in A.D. 70, the nation of pharisees got destroyed anyways!) The theonomist will probably then say, “but wouldn’t the nation be better off without all that idolatry, adultery, etc.?” Well (a) that’s a separate question from whether verses about “nations required to be righteous” can be used to justify theonomic laws, and (b) is a non-Christian “better off” if he burns his idols, and ends his adulterous affair, but remains a non-Christian? Are nations called to be outwardly righteous, or truly righteous? The only way for a nation to be righteous is the same as the only way a person can be righteous. By being Christian. Not by acting Christian, or more specifically, not by not acting non-Christian under penalty of death.

[Another Addendum]: Listen to Gene’s post-debate show — I call in, and Jeff calls in too! Here’s the link to the podcasted mp3.

This guy has been there and back again, and tells us how. How many tens of thousands of words on this blog could have been saved if only I had read this first?

On a related note, it appears that James Jordan went all the way through Theonomy and came out on the other (dark) side! From wikipedia, I don’t understand this paragraph:

A third type of Reconstructionist theonomy was followed by some writers associated with the Institute for Christian Economics in Tyler, Texas (which also published some of Bahnsen’s works). These writers, especially James Jordan, followed the mono-covenantalism of Rushdoony, but put an emphasis on the idea that, as there was only one covenant, and that covenant was given to the Church, and law was given within that covenant, law was given to the Church, and not to the world. The implication of this was soon understood to be that the writings of Moses were not a law code as such, and that theonomy was not a legitimate idea, nor was Christian Reconstruction which took theonomy as its moral foundation. Biblical law was still seen as important, but secondary to ecclesiastical concerns. Eventually a new theological movement, known as Federal Vision theology, emerged.

More news wrt “The man Christ Jesus” Dr Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda: Pastor Gene Cook of Unchained Radio/The Narrow Mind Webcast hosted “Bishop of Bishops” Carlos Cestero (apparently Miranda’s chief apologist/spokesman), to discuss his movement in the light of scripture. The audio (60 min/15meg mp3) is available from the Unchained Radio podcast site. Eventually (next year?) I think the mp3 will roll off the free podcast page, but it should still be available from Unchained Radio for 98 cents.

Some thoughts:

• In contrast to a theonomic response (execute him), I believe that this public exchange admirably exemplifies a truly biblical response to dangerous heresy. Gene Cook is an amazingly patient and charitable debater. I’m sure that I could not have kept my cool as well as he did in the presence of such abominable and blatantly heretical misinterpretations of scripture! (Nor could I have been so ready with scriptural counterexamples)
• One significant hint that shows how whacked Miranda et al are, is that they restrict the set of applicable scripture to Paul; thus when John says “If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us,” he is only talking to the Jews. And the words of Jesus himself are discounted, because the Gospels are books of history, not of doctrine.
• Gene Cook’s final take in the “Bishop of Bishops” interview is intriguing and scary:

I believe that this movement is going to be very successful. You wanna know why? Exactly what Carlos stated: The Church, for years, has been teaching false doctrine. The Church doesn’t understand the differences between justification and sanctification. You’ve got most modern Evanjellyfish, as we call them, most modern Evangelical churches out there that are confusing the categories of justification and sanctification — the Roman Catholics do the same thing. So guess what, when somebody can come by, and explain justification, they automatically have an audience.

• After that final statement, Cook goes on to explain that the Evanjellyfish problem is bringing Justification under the category of Sanctification (Salvation by Works), and this movement jumps to the opposite extreme, bringing Sanctification under the category of Justification (Easy Believism).

It so happens that the reason I started poking around Unchained Radio is that Gene Cook will be participating in an upcoming informal debate I am organizing, on the topic of Theonomy. As a matter of fact, he is the chosen opponent of my Theonomic buddy Jeff Kazules. I can’t wait!

Note that Gene Cook was also moderator of this debate, and Paul Manata and shadowboxing atheist Derek Sansone both show up in various archived programs.  I encourage you to wander through the Unchained Radio podcast and listen to other free programs that tickle your fancy. I also encourage you to register (free) at Unchained Radio, and wander through the Radio Archives, and maybe buy a few 98-cent shows, or shell out $10 or $20 for a year’s membership (which I assume allows you unlimited downloads). I already mentioned appearances by Paul Manata and Derek Sansone, but also my pastor (Brian Tallman) is a guest of three shows, John Frame was a guest just last week (“Redemptive Historical Preaching”, podcast here), Pastor Paul Viggiano was a guest in a program discussing the Law of God (podcast here, but time runs out before they can start talking about Theonomy!), Roger Wagner is on three programs — the list just keeps going!

A while back, I quoted John M. Frame’s review of Rushdoony’s Institutes of Biblical Law. Buried in another comment thread, I recently provided a link to Frame’s article “Machen’s Warrior Children”. I highly recommend that all (Reformed Christian) readers of this blog go and read that article. Here is the abstract, to give you a flavor of what it is about:

From 1923 to the present, the movement begun by J. Gresham Machen and Westminster Theological Seminary has supplied the theological leadership for the conservative evangelical Reformed Christians in the United States. Under that leadership, conservative Calvinists made a strong stand against liberal theology. But having lost that theological battle in the Presbyterian Church, U. S. A., they turned inward to battle among themselves about issues less important—in some cases, far less important—than liberalism. This essay describes 21 of these issues, with some subdivisions, and offers some brief analysis and evaluations. It concludes by raising some questions for the Reformed community to consider: Was it right to devote so much of the church’s time and effort to these theological battles? Did the disputants follow biblical standards for resolution of these issues? Was the quality of thought in these polemics worthy of the Reformed tradition of scholarship? Should the Reformed community be willing to become more inclusive, to tolerate greater theological differences than many of the polemicists have wanted?

I still have not read all 21 topics myself, but I have read those that touch on topics hotly debated on this blog (I’ll give you a hint: it starts with T, and it rhymes with Sheonomy), and in other areas that I occasionally butt heads with brothers (NPP, FV, …). If you go read #8 of that article, I think you will get a sense of Frame’s abilities (calling?) as a peacemaker, a fair and unbiased arbiter who seeks to reconcile theological disputes by dispelling misunderstandings, establishing commonalities, and minimizing unimportant differences. And if the prospect of peace and unity among God’s covenant children is not enough of an incentive for you to go read the article, then maybe you can consider it to be a concise summary of the 21 best topics that you and your brothers can fight about!

The other day, I discovered the source of both of those Frame articles, http://www.frame-poythress.org/, which (as the name suggests) is a website run jointly by Frame and his protege Vern Poythress. I felt like Jed Clampett when up from the ground came a-bubblin’ crude (black gold, Texas tea)! There are (at least) two more articles about Theonomy, both of which I found very insightful. Before I dive into those, however, I want to take a brief detour for readers who are not interested in that particular topic.

This is an interesting and very short article on a topic about which I have a whole series of blogs planned (and kind of in progress…). There’s also a section of the website where you can find three whole books by Frame, including Theology at the Movies. I think his reviews do a great job teasing out the worldviews behind movies, and analyzing a properly Christian perspective, without killing the edifying enjoyment that can be gotten from just watching a good movie. Check out his reviews of The Apostle and Nightmare Before Christmas. I’d like to share a screen and a bucket of popcorn with Frame sometime. But in the meantime, I’ve got a lifetime’s worth of free Frame (and Poythress, for instance this is up my alley) writings to digest!

Now for the two Theonomy articles. The first is “Toward a Theology of the State“, in which Frame steers a moderate course between Bahnsen’s Theonomy and Kline’s Intrusion Ethic. Frame posits a novel (to me, anyways) concept of the biblical state as a “mega-family”, an extension of the progression from individual to nuclear family, extended family, clan, tribe, … It is a rather long read, so I give you some choice quotes.

Meredith Kline’s “intrusion ethic,” while containing much biblical insight, argues for a religiously neutral state based on inadequate biblical premises and a too sharp dichotomy between the Mosaic and the New Covenants.

I have a strong initial attraction [to Theonomy], because of its earnest adherence to sola Scriptura and its willingness to wrestle seriously with the details of biblical law in formulating its positions. However, I believe that theonomists sometimes underestimate the complexity of the continuities and discontinuities between Old and New Testaments and thus often jump to wrong conclusions about the present-day applications of Old Testament laws. Also, I find their actual view of the state inadequate…

The traditional distinction between moral, civil and ceremonial law is still useful as a catechetical device, but not helpful in resolving concrete problems of application. In asking how a particular law applies to us, we do not assign it first to one of those three categories and then deduce from that its applicability. Rather we ask first concerning its applicability, and on the basis of that conclusion we then assign it to one (or more) of the three categories.

Some have found divine warrant for the state in Gen. 9:6, where God commands Noah’s family to return bloodshed for bloodshed. But this is a command given to a family. There is no indication here of any new institution being established. And in the law of Moses, the execution of murderers was carried out, not by the state as such, but by the “avenger of blood,” kin of the murder victim, Num. 35:19, 21, Deut. 19:12. The family, here, is the instrument of justice.

God established Old Testament Israel as a holy nation, distinct from all the nations of the earth (Ex. 19:5f, Deut. 7:6). A holy nation is ruled differently from other nations.

… It is likely that the special holiness of Israel influences to some extent the penalties required for transgressions under the Mosaic law. For instance, Deut. 14:21 bases a prohibition of eating creatures already dead upon the fact that “you are a people holy to the Lord your God.” Indeed, Israel is permitted to give or sell such food to aliens and foreigners, an odd qualification if eating such things were morally wrong. Most likely, then, eating such food is not wrong for everybody, but only for God’s holy people, for whom he has provided a great bounty of food in the land flowing with milk and honey. Another example: Vern Poythress has argued persuasively from the language of the passages that the penalties for false worship in Deut. 13 and 17 are also based on the special holiness of Israel.

… I agree with Vern Poythress that these death penalties [for false worship and seducing others to false worship] are based upon the special holiness of Israel. When God condescends to live in the midst of a nation as did God in Israel, it is particularly insulting to permit people to commit idolatry. It pollutes the holy land where he dwells. That rationale for the punishments of Deut. 13 and 17 does not apply to modern states. I agree with Poythress, therefore, that the simple acts of publicly worshipping false gods and of inciting others to do so should not be punished by the state.

I just want to briefly note that Frame’s conclusion that I boldfaced right there echos exactly what I argued here, concerning Paul’s reinterpretation of the rationale language of O.T. death penalty laws. I could quote from this article all day, but if I quote any more, then I might as well just paste the whole article! If you are intrigued by these quotes, then you should go read the whole article, to see how Frame conceives of a Christian state that tolerates false religion. I’m not sure I agree with all of it, but it is more fully thought-out than anything I have heard from the Theonomist camp.

If you don’t have the stomach for that long article, you might be interested in the more compact “Penultimate Thoughts on Theonomy,” which is less about the doctrinal specifics or accuracy of Theonomy, but more about lessons learned from the debate. I close with a few choice quotes:

Both Bahnsen and Kline make broad, bold programmatic statements which they modify considerably in their detailed discussions. This happens to such an extent that in my opinion their bold programmatic statements do not really or fairly represent the views they are presenting.

There is some confusion in theonomy between present and future application of the law. Often when Bahnsen is pressed as to the difficulty of enforcing theonomy in today’s world, he argues that the Mosaic laws should not be enforced today. … Sure: if the postmilennial hope is realized and the world-society with its institutions becomes largely Christian, then most of us would find very attractive the prospect of living under something like the Mosaic civil law. … We need not only to determine how literally the law is to be applied in the ideal situation; we must also determine how it is to be applied in the non-ideal situation of today.

After some reflection, I have come to the conclusion that theonomy (like Dooyeweerdianism in the 1960s) is a good case study of how theological ideas should not be introduced. … The sharp polemics of the theonomic movement (and, to be sure, of its critics in return) have been in my view quite unnecessary and indeed counter-productive to its own purposes. People have a hard time seeing the important truths that theonomy communicates; it is hard to learn from someone who is always accusing you of something. Reformed people have always had a high regard for God’s law. They are not, on the whole, antinomians and should not be stigmatized as such.

Don’t you just love it how the Sprit can open your eyes to the reading of God’s word? I just saw something I never noticed before. Readers of this blog are certainly aware of the controversial nature of this quote from Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount in Matt 5:

17“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (ESV)

Now I have no problem interpreting ‘fulfill’ as ‘bring to their intended completion’, but Theonomists insist that, in juxtaposition with ‘not abolish’, ‘fulfill’ must mean something more along the lines of ‘affirm’. How do we decide? Well, before we give up (and before we turn to the witness of the rest of the bible), we use the immediate context, namely v18, where Jesus continues “truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law.” That’s bad news for everybody. Bad news for the non-Theonomist, because it looks like Moses’ law remains valid until the second coming. Bad news for every true Christian, however, because with all the ‘iota & dot’ (jot & tittle) language, it looks like Moses’ law remains valid in the very letter — thus we all better go buy some sheep, and start keeping kosher, and get circumcised!

But take a closer look at v18: my quotation in the middle of the last paragraph ended before the verse ended (and exactly where my memory always left off when thinking of this verse). It continues with “until all is accomplished”.

What? The jots & tittles will not pass away (a) until heaven and earth pass away, or (b) until all is accomplished? Read that whole sentence carefully, and you will find that the grammar doesn’t even make sense, with those two until clauses in there. In the KJV, the word ‘accomplished’ is rendered as ‘fulfilled’. Sound familiar? This is a different greek word (ginomai vs. pleyroo), and it shows up various ways, for instance: Mat 5:45 “That ye may be children of the Father…”; Matt 4:3 “…command these stones to be made bread” Matt 6:10 “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven”,

Most interestingly, we have another verse in which ginomai and pleyroo are in close proximity: Matt 1:22 “Now all this was done [ginomai], that it might be fulfilled [pleyroo] which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet…”. So it is not inconceivable that ‘accomplished’ in v18 is linked to ‘fulfill’ in v17.

Let me note also that “truly, I say to you” is a formula that Jesus repeats often, basically to add emphasis (since obviously nothing he says to us is false). I contend that “until heaven and earth pass away”, which is separated from the rest of the sentence on both sides by commas, is also an emphasizer, applying to “truly, I say unto you”, and the other until clause applies to the jots and tittles. Hence I give you the RRV (RubeRad Version) translation of Matt 5:17-18:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; for I come not to abolish thm, but to fulfill them. I tell you something which is eternally true: not one jot or tittle of the law will pass away until all is fulfilled.

(Note, by the way, that the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets is something I will accomplish in just a few short years… stay tuned!)

I’d like to have someone who actually knows Greek give me some feedback on this. BTall? If this interpretation is unsustainable from the Greek, I’ll be back in paradoxland!

In the beginning, there is God, and God has a Law. God’s Law is a natural expression of his perfect, constant, and holy character. All men, in all times, Old Covenant, New Covenant, in covenant, out of covenant — All men are subject to God’s Law. And we have sin, which is any transgression or want of conformity to God’s Law. Sin earns death, and God is the judge and executioner. But there’s a problem: God’s Law is not written, and thus it is hard for man to know what it is, so that he can obey it. And when he fails to obey it, man earns for himself death. But God loves man, and wants to give him life.

So one day, God gives Moses some law. More accurately, he chooses a people, and establishes with that chosen people a covenant, which includes laws, as well as a promised land in which the chosen people can isolate themselves and remain pure; and this whole covenant is revealed to Israel via Moses. Although Moses’ law is less than God’s law, what there is of it does reflect God’s perfect and holy nature, and is consistent with God’s Law. Moses’ law is full of types and shadows of God’s underlying Law.

Also, unlike God’s Law, Moses’ law is a concrete, objective thing, laid out in a finite set of words (which happen to be built out of letters (which happen to be built out of jots and tittles (the point being that it is a tangible reference (not an ethereal, spiritual, unknowable thing)))). Better yet, not only does Moses’ law include concrete instructions on what to do, but it also includes instructions on how to handle failure to do what needs to be done: penalties, as well as provisions for restoration! Surely this is a big step forward in man knowing how to obey, and thus avoiding death. But there’s a new problem; Moses’ law is written. And the letter kills.

It’s not the law’s fault. It’s not even God’s fault. It is inherent in the nature of written law that it kills, in that it causes man to recognize sin, without enabling him to conquer it. The resulting death is all still man’s responsibility, because man still commits sin. Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But God could not make a written law that gives life any more than he could make 2+2 not equal 4 — and so I repeat, if it were possible for God to make a written law that could give life, then he would have!

God being omniscient, he surely was not surprised when Israel (despite having been given concrete instructions) continued to sin with abandon and relish. As a matter of fact, he knew that was exactly what would happen, and immediately after finishing giving the law to Moses, God told Moses that was exactly what would happen.

It turns out that the covenant God made with his chosen people was not directly for the purpose of giving life to Israel, but part of a larger plan to give life to a chosen people that included elect members of all nations and tribes. Turns out, just like Moses’ law didn’t give life, Moses’ provisions for restoration from sin didn’t actually take away sin. So the real plan required not only a perfect sacrifice, but also giving man the ability to obey God’s Law. In place of the covenant with Israel, God would establish a New Covenant in which his law would be written on the hearts and minds of the people, and their sins would be truly forgiven.

Upon the completion of the perfect sacrifice, the covenant God had made previously with Israel completed its purpose of being a temporary prison and tutor; thus the old covenant was declared obsolete, and it was set aside because of its weakness and uselessness. And as the covenant went out, so did Moses’ law, and so did the chosen status of God’s people (although they have the right to join the New Covenant, possibly even more right than others!)

So looking back from the perspective of the New Covenant, there is a lot we can understand better about Moses’ law (better, I mean, than the members of the Old Covenant could understand from the inside):

God had given to Israel a covenant through Moses, but every letter (and jot and tittle) of that covenant expired together with the state of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

One part of Moses’ law is known as the moral law, delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man. It turns out that the general equity of the ten commandments is virtually indistinguishable from the ten commandments themselves, since God wrote them almost completely without specific cultural references (except for the fact that most people I know don’t have livestock or servants).

Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament. And the general equity of the ceremonial laws consists of

• relying only on Christ’s one perfect sacrifice for salvation from sin, and
• remaining a pure and set apart covenant body, not outwardly, but in the heart.

To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which although expired in the letter, are — inasmuch as the Holy Spirit reveals God’s true, underlying Law through the type and shadow of the letter — profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, and are of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions.

But the most important thing is that members of the New Covenant understand that they no longer live according to the law of Moses, indeed, we have been set free from the law of sin and death, and in order that the righteous requirement of [God's] Law might be fulfilled in us, [we] walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. This is the way that God has given us life.

So it all worked out great for those God has elected to be in his New Covenant. Not so much for those not in the covenant. Since God planted his Image in all men, and is mirrored in his creation, men are intrinsically wired to write laws for themselves. Being sinful, though, it is not surprising that through the ages they have done a pretty lousy job of it. Some New Covenant people are understandably grieved by the amount of sin against God’s true Law due to the messed-up laws of the non-covenant people. In addition, since they are forced to live together with the non-covenant people, they are tired of being negatively affected by the consequences of messed-up laws.

So one potential solution readily presents itself to many such New Covenant members: Hey! We’ve got this old Mosaic law laying around. We’re not really using it anymore (we’ve sucked the general equity all out, and we’re done with the empty shell of jots and tittles), but it’s got a lot of good ideas about how to run a society. I mean, it came from God, so it’s got to be good! Let’s give it to the non-covenant people, and we can all use it to run our earthly society. Being such awful sinners (and not generally up for death penalties that will fall mostly on them, not us), they probably won’t like the idea too well right now, but if we keep working on them, and if we can bring in enough of them into the New Covenant with us, then we can all use Moses’ law again. Won’t that be nice?

I stumbled upon this while starting to write a comment in this previous thread. It seemed important enough that it deserved its own new post (and thanks to Albino Hayford for the title suggestion!).

Consider, from I Cor 5, the case of incest that Paul had to deal with:

1It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife. 2And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. 3For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing.

Now in the Mosaic law, not only is adultery a capital crime, but this specific case is included in a long list of prohibited sexual combinations (Lev 18:8). Paul is rightfully outraged, not just at the offense itself, but also at the fact that the Corinthians consider this an admirable exercise of ‘Christian Liberty’. Let’s read on to see what is the judgment that Paul passes:

4When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

Is there any hint here that Paul thinks that, after excommunication, this case will be (should be) taken up by civil authorities, to result in execution (as the Theonomist would argue)? No, he says “deliver this man to Satan.” That’s it. Here “destruction of the flesh” cannot mean physical execution, because in his unrepentant, Satan-possessed, excommunicated state, his spirit would definitely not be “saved in the day of the Lord”.  This is exactly Pauls attitude also in 1 Tim 1:19-20: “some have made shipwreck of their faith, among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.”

Paul’s judgment that such offenders should be “delivered unto Satan” hearkens back to Romans 1; even though the godless “deserve to die”, “God gives them up” to to their lusts, to their dishonorable passions, to their debased minds. Immediately after this, Romans 2 proceeds to instruct man not to judge. Man cannot judge because every man is equally guilty. “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven” “We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who do such things.” “He will render to each one according to his works” “there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress”; not from men on this earth, but from God in the final judgement.

OK, back to the Corinthians. After treating the specific case of the incestuous man (and curiously omitting the woman), Paul treats sexual immorality more generally, as well as other sins (including idolatry):

9I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people– 10not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler–not even to eat with such a one.

Here we see that Paul acknowledges a different standard for those in the covenant, and those out of the covenant. Paul is not saying that those outside the church are not sinning — by calling it immorality, he is labeling it as sin. Paul is not saying that the realm of authority for those outside the church (aka the civil magistrate) does or should or may condone these sins — back up in v1 he notes that not even pagans tolerate that kind of incest. The point that Paul does make is that Christians should have a different response to the sin of believers vs. the sin of unbelievers.

So now we reach Paul’s final conclusion on this topic, before he moves on to discuss lawsuits between Christians:

12For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

There ya go, it can’t be much clearer. The business of judging those outside the church is God’s business, not the church’s business. Which denies the Theonomic concept that a state can execute laws against false worship, idolatry, blasphemy, sabbath-breaking, heresy, as long as they can obtain proper judgments from the church, since the state is by nature not competent to make such judgments by itself.

But wait, it gets clearer! Look carefully at v13; why the quotation marks? When Paul says “Purge the evil person from among you,” he is quoting from the Old Testament. He happens to be quoting a catchphrase of the Mosaic Law, which shows up in a number of places:

The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done an outrageous thing in Israel by whoring in her father’s house. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

“If a man is found stealing one of his brothers, of the people of Israel, and if he treats him as a slave or sells him, then that thief shall die. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

(Note: I’m pretty certain that Paul’s quote “Purge the evil person from among you” differs slightly from the exact words of the Mosaic catchphrase, because while our Old Testament is translated directly from the Hebrew, the New Testament authors (writing in Greek) usually quoted from the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament), and our New Testament is then translated directly from the apostles’ Greek.)

So other than the common catchphrase in all those Old Testament references, is there any other common feature that stands out in all of them? C’mon, I know you can find it: the death penalty! When God gave the Law to Moses, he justified (not that he ever needs to justify his divine decrees, but in this case he providentially did) death penalties by the need to keep his covenant people pure, and free of evil. Paul uses exactly the same justification, demonstrating that Old Covenant death penalties are the type and shadow of New Covenant excommunication; and in the same breath Paul prohibits the church from judging those outside the church, because that is strictly God’s domain.

So I have been challenged:

Your biggest problem is the penal sanctions. Either give exegetical proof for their being shadows that have somehow realized a reality, such as Christ’s sacrifice, or just accept them. What other choice is there besides arbitrariness or antinomianism?

This is my exegetical proof, thus I don’t accept them. As for “what other choice,” that’s a separate question, but I’ll give a hint that the answer is closely related to this question:

So, before Christ, was God’s law Christian? Before Moses? Before Abraham? Noah?