Introduction
In the Twitter world (actually, the “X” world), Christian Nationalism is a controversial topic. Those critical of it end up putting theonomy under the crosshairs. I am a recent convert (almost a year) to postmillennialism (PM), and theonomy has a close relationship with it. The relationship is not essential; postmillennialism does not necessarily entail theonomy, nor vice-versa (I sound like a philosopher). Before moving to a PM perspective, I had only heard negative remarks about theonomy, such as, “theonomists believe the entire Mosaic law is binding on Christians, even stoning your children.” Or “theonomists believe we should have a theocracy like OT Israel.” And that “theonomists seek to impose the kingdom of God through use of the sword, by having a state enforced religion.” Or “theonomists see America as God’s chosen nation.” Theonomy sounds intense. Theonomy sounds extreme. Theonomy sounds un-Christian.
In the spring of 2023, I immersed myself in the writings of an actual theonomist, the late Greg Bahnsen. Bahnsen’s position is representative of the Reformed strand of theonomy. Key works include Theonomy in Christian Ethics, No Other Standard: Theonomy and Its Critics,[1] and By This Standard: The Authority of God’s Law Today. After reading these books, I concluded that the theonomist ethic Bahnsen articulates is nothing like the claims noted above [2]. The central principle in Bahnsen’s perspective (and representative of theonomy) “is the conviction that God’s special revelation—His written word—is necessary as the objective standard of morality for God’s people.”[3] More specifically, Bahnsen argues, based on the words of our Lord Jesus Christ (Mt 5:17–19), “every jot and tittle of God’s law as laid down in the revelation of the Older and New Testaments,” the Christian is obligated to keep as a pattern of sanctification. And “in the realm of human society, the civil magistrate is responsible to enforce God’s law against public crime.”[4]
Now, I am sure you can see how his statements would ruffle some feathers, particularly in the Evangelical atmosphere of America where nominal, “easy-believism” is rampant. You might even be a strong Christian, devout to your faith, the Word of God, and committed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and feel a bit uneasy about Bahnsen’s statements. They might even sound legalistic to you. Well, I once thought so as well. Therefore, one of my aims in this article is to summarize the theonomic position, with the hopes of dispelling any false notions of theonomy.[5]
In contrast to the theonomic position, the Protestant Reformed Tradition advocates natural law, a common principle God has put into the hearts and minds of men, giving them the ability to act virtuously and discern with sound reason. While perusing social media discussions and debates about theonomy, one individual made a boisterous stance against Bahnsen’s theonomic position, claiming that the strongest work that dismantles the theonomic ethic is the treatise, On the Law in General,[6] written by Girolamo Zanchi (1516–1590), an Italian Protestant Reformer of the second-generation following John Calvin. So, I purchased it. It is a short work, as it is a chapter from a larger work of his Theological Writings.
Space does not allow me to get into the historical background of natural law.[7] However, the basic understanding is that the Protestant Reformers ascribed to a natural-law tradition, which was more developed by Calvin’s successors. As noted, Girolamo Zanchi was one of them, to whom the Reformed tradition is greatly indebted for his contribution to the development of the Reformed system of theology. While the Reformed tradition varied in its employment of natural law, Zanchi made extensive use of it. He gives natural law equal authority with the Decalogue (Ten Commandments), as it describes what is naturally common to man. In line with the Augustinian tradition (and Aquinas), Zanchi understood natural law to be an eternal law grounded in the Divine Being, the perfect embodiment of reason, which God then imparted to humanity and is mankind’s rule and guide over his affairs, from which laws are devised. Zanchi understood that the natural law is the will of God, which God, in his grace, reinscribed universally on the mind of man after the Fall. Zanchi’s natural-law theory was very influential upon Reformed political theorists to follow, particularly Johannes Althusius (1563–1638). Althusius set out to develop a full-scale account of politics that accounted for a symbiotic interconnectedness among human beings, whereby they are “naturally inclined toward society, that they are designed by God to perform acts of love toward one another, and that even the laws which people make are to designed to enable these acts of love.”[8]
This series of articles will progress as follows: Part 1) I will summarize Bahnsen’s position, which I call Scriptural Law; Part 2) then, I will summarize Zanchi’s position, which I call Natural Law. I will state up front that I think Bahnsen’s perspective offers greater continuity with the revealed will of God than Zanchi’s approach, providing the Christian a biblically reasoned understanding for faith and practice, in subjection to God’s Word.
Bahnsen: Scriptural Law
Bahnsen’s theonomy is grounded in the conviction that “God’s special revelation—his Word—is necessary as the objective standard of morality for God’s people.”[9] The words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount establish the rule that all Christians are obligated to obey all of God’s commands as revealed in the OT (and in the NT). Bahnsen writes that we are to presume that all OT commands are binding unless the New Testament indicates otherwise (2). He sees a strict continuity between the Testaments that must be maintained, with the NT qualifying the OT law, rather than relative human opinion (3). Theonomy not Autonomy is what we must live by. With that said certain aspects of the OT law are not authoritative today. God issued commands situationally specific to Israel, such as God’s command of Israel to go to war to acquire the land of Palestine by the sword (4). Furthermore, there were laws with cultural details, for example, the flying ax head, intended to illustrate a moral distinction between accidental manslaughter and murder. Important to understand is that the authority of the moral principle, not the cultural example, is what is carried over into NT Christianity. Modern critics make the mistake of assuming theonomists see the OT law in its literal wording as obligatory for Christians. Bahnsen writes, “The position taken herein is not that every last detail of the Old Testament life must be reproduced today as morally obligatory, but simply that our presumption must be that of continuity with the standing laws of the Old Testament (when properly, contextually interpreted)” (4).
What is not being asserted is the idea that obedience to God’s law is a way one gains justification in the eyes of God. Grace through the faith in Christ Jesus alone is the only means of saving faith. The law is the pattern of holy living, the Spirit, not the law is the dynamic power that enables one to obey God’s righteous word (5). We must ask, “How did Christ earn perfect righteousness?” True obedience comes from the heart, not merely an outward conformity to God’s law as did the Pharisees (6). Bahnsen importantly notes that the church’s “commitment must be to the transforming power of God’s word which reforms all areas of life by the truth. Ignoring the need for socio-political reform or trying to achieve it by force both contradict the church’s reformational responsibilities” (7).
All of life is ethical; therefore, we need to objectively know God’s ethical requirements and how to carry them out. Bahnsen references 2Ti 3:16–7 to show us that “the entire Bible is our ethical yardstick for every part of it is the word of the eternal, unchanging God” (17). Paul’s words were written before the NT was completed. So, he was referencing the OT as his primary source. As to the importance of the OT, Jesus’ words are definitive: “Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 5:19). Christ is the King. And he governs his kingdom righteously, for our good, our neighbors’ good, and for the good of society (60). Kingdom work must be done according to the King’s laws; however, our Lord’s commands are not burdensome (1Jn 5:3). “They are the delight of the righteous man who receives God’s blessing (Ps 1). (60)”
Bahnsen continues, bringing the reader’s attention to the positive outcome God’s commandments bear on the obedient life of the believer. They provide life and well-being (Dt 30:15–6), blessing and a strong heart that does not fear (Ps 119:1–2; 112:5–7), peace and security (Ps 119:28, 165, 175; Pr 13:6; Lk 6:46–8), God’s loving-kindness (Ps 103:17–8), and liberty in our Christian walk (Ps 119:45; Pr 4:12). The obedient prosper in respect to our daily needs (Ja 1:7), and collective obedience will bring blessing to a society: “Righteousness exalts a nation” (Pr 14:34) (60).
Bahnsen sees explicit support from the NT. We see people introduced in the NT as those whom God favors because of their obedience to his Law (Lk 1:6; 2:21–4, 27, 39). The Lord emphatically teaches his arrival did not nullify one jot or title of the Law. Throughout his ministry, he appeals to God’s law to bolster his teaching (Jn 8:17), vindicate his behavior (Mt 12:5), answer questioners (Lk 10:26), and establish the goodness of the will of God to men (Mt 19:17). He insured his actions were in accord with the Law (Mk 2:25–8), directing others to live in accord with the it as well (Mk 1:44; 10:17–9). He taught his disciples to pray for God’s will to be done on earth (Mt 6:10) and for them to teach all nations to observe all his commands (Mt 28:18–20). Jesus reaffirmed the Decalogue (Mt 19:18; Mk 10:19), even citing an OT penal code for handling delinquents (Mt 15:4). Jesus affirmed the binding authority of God’s law on the NT Christian (Mt 5:19)—“Scripture cannot be broken” (Jn 10:35). And as the Law is our standard of ethics, Christ will come back to judge all men who commit lawless deeds (Mt 7:23; 13:41).
Bahnsen notes “The apostolic attitude toward the law of the Old Testament parallels that of Christ” (67). Paul maintained the Law’s moral authority (Ro 13:9) for the Christian, and James stated not one point was to be violated. Paul explicitly says the Law is our standard of holiness, writing, “The law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good” (Ro 7:12). He appeals to the Law to substantiate his teaching (1Co 14:34; as does James [2:9]) and case-law applications of it (1Ti 5:18). Paul even invoked a penal code at his tribunal, stating he is not trying to escape death if actions are worthy it (Ac 25:11; cf. Dt 21:22; Ro 13:4). The NT defines sin as law-breaking (1Jo 3:4; Ro 7:7). Law breaking is unrighteousness, and he who practices unrighteousness is not of God (1Jo 3:10). The Christian is to have not fellowship with unrighteousness (2Co 6:14); rather, to love righteousness means one hates lawlessness (He 1:9). The NT Christian has the moral duty of love which is defined in terms of God’s law (Mt 22:40; Ro 13:10; 1Jo 5:2–3). Love fulfills the Law, which means the believer will not commit adultery with his neighbor’s wife, steal from him, or slander him. Lawlessness is not to reign over a believer (Ro 6:12–3; 1Jo 3:3–5), for the Holy Spirit satisfies the requirement within him (Ro 8:4). Paul says to the Corinthians, do not be deceived (1Co 6:9). Why does he say that? Because there was a spirit of lawlessness that seemed to be overlooked, so that “grace may abound.”[11] Paul continues: “No sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, or males who have sex with males, no thieves, greedy people, drunkards, verbally abusive people, or swindlers will inherit God’s kingdom” (1Co 6:9–10). In looking at the inspired writers of the NT, when it came to weighing in on moral matters, from which rules did they make judgments? Did they ignore the OT commandments, seeing since Christ has come, they were expired, inapplicable, or invalid? No, rather they put them into service, assuming their moral authority for the NT age.
A New Covenant Christian has the Law written on his heart (He 8:4) and is identified as one who “keep the commands of God and hold firmly to the testimony about Jesus” (Re 12:17; 14:12). Bahnsen concludes: He who downgrades or ignores the OT law are sternly warned by the Apostle John: “The one who says, ‘I have come to know him,’ and yet doesn’t keep his commands, is a liar, and the truth is not him.” (67).
The Continuing Validity of God’s Law
The continuity of God’s Old Testament law is the greatest point of contention in this discussion. For Bahnsen, the words of the Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew 5:17–9, not one jot or title from the law will pass away from the law, are binding for the Christian community. Those who would oppose keeping the law have to contend with the strong affirmation from the Lord (95). God’s moral character, as the law reflects, is unchanging, not having a double standard. As we consider the continuity of the OT law in the NT, Bahnsen asks some provoking questions with which critics need to contend:
Why then is the writing of the Old Testament law on our hearts central to the New Covenant? Why does the Bible say His commandments are everlasting? Why do the New Testament writers say that the entire Old Testament is our instruction in righteousness and to be obeyed? Why do they cite its stipulations with authority and use them to bolster their own teaching? Why are we expected to model our behavior on Christ’s, while we are told that He 0beyed the law meticulously and perfectly? Why does the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit entail the observance of God’s law? Why does love summarize the law in particular? Why does faith establish the law for us to keep, and why does God’s grace teach us to walk in the law’s path of righteousness? Why are we told in numerous ways that the law brings blessings to those who heed it? Why are the law’s requirements never criticized or explicitly repudiated in the New Testament? Why are those who do not keep the law but claim to know the Savior called liars? God’s inspired word says all of these things and more. What reply can the detractors from God’s law today make in the face of such insurmountable evidence of the law’s full validity? (95–6)
Bahnsen writes that his detractors commonly and fallaciously claim the OT law is too strange and harsh for the Christian community to obey. Such answers do not suffice for the questions issued above, considering the NT’s affirmation to the contrary, stating that “the message [the giving of the law] spoken through angels was legally binding, and every transgression and disobedience received a just punishment” (Heb 2:2). Nowhere in Scripture is an exception made to ignore or disobey God’s law; therefore, Bahnsen writes, we do not have the moral authority to make an exception for ourselves (96).
With that said, Bahnsen recognizes that there seem to be OT requirements not kept by Christians and some culturally outdated legal provisions inapplicable to our modern context. So how do we accommodate without being judges of God’s law and canceling out any jot or tittle as the Lord commanded? Essential to answering this question is recognizing the categories in which the laws fall (97). Bahnsen writes “It is necessary to understand the laws of God according to their own character, purpose, and function. Only in that way will the law be ‘lawfully used’ (cf. 1 Tim. 1:8)” (97).
Moral and Ceremonial Laws
Bahnsen observes two fundamental distinctions in the OT law: moral and ceremonial. Moral laws reflect the perfect, unchanging righteousness of God, guiding man’s path away from sin in holy uprightness. God’s law restrains evil and drives the sinner to salvation in Christ. Ceremonial laws are “redemptive provisions—reflecting the mercy of God in saving those who have violated God’s moral standards.” Ceremonial laws “typify Christ’s saving economy,” separating the redeemed from the world (97).
To illustrate their distinctions, the moral law prohibits stealing; the ceremonial law issues the sacrificial provision for the thief to receive forgiveness. The moral law establishes the obligations for humanity, which mankind has failed to do. Christ’s coming into the world as our Savior, living in full, perfect obedience to the law’s demands, gave himself as the true sacrifice, which the ceremonial law foreshadowed (97).
Bahnsen identifies two sub-divisions in the ceremonial and moral laws. Within the ceremonial laws we observe “(1) laws directing the redemptive process and therefore typify Christ—for instance, regulations for sacrifice, the temple, the priesthood, etc., and (2) laws which taught the redemptive community its separation from the unbelieving nations—for instance, prohibitions on unclean meats (Lev. 20:22–26), on equal yoking of animals (Deut. 22:10), and on certain kinds of mixing of seed or cloth (Deut. 22:9–11)” (97–8). The NT community does not observe these laws in the way of the OT shadows. The principle, however, is still valid. The shed blood of the Passover lamb in the ceremonial law foreshadowed the Lamb of God who came and took away the sins of the world (Jn 1:29). In Acts 10, the Lord ended the food laws separating Jew and Gentile, but the Christian’s separateness from the unbelieving world is in force (2Co 6:14–7:1). Bahnsen writes, “The ceremonial law is therefore confirmed forever by Christ, even though not kept in its shadow-form by New Testament believers” (98).
In the moral law, we see a literary difference: “(1) general or summary precepts of morality—for instance, the unspecified requirements of sexual purity and honesty (‘Do not commit adultery’ and ‘Do not steal’) and (2) commands that specify general precepts by way of illustrative application—for instance, prohibiting incest, homosexuality, defrauding one’s workers, or muzzling the ox as he treads” (98).
This judicial application of the Decalogue in a case-law system entails the principle of the law having continuity in contexts removed from the ancient culture of the OT. The specific wording of the judicial laws is not binding; rather, the principle or “general equity,” as the Puritans called it, is what we are required to abide. For example, the Old Testament required that a railing be placed around one’s roof to make sure someone does not fall off. Because their rooves were flat, it was a common place for guests to socialize. In our modern context, most houses are built with sloped roofs, so we are not required to have a railing. However, the general equity application might require that one put a fence around one’s pool to keep children from falling in and drowning. We can find more of these case-law illustrations in the NT (e.g., the OT laws prohibiting incest 1Co 5:1, homosexuality Ro 1:26–7, 32, defrauding employees Mk 10:19, and muzzling an ox while it treads grain 1Ti 5:18) (98–9).
Bahnsen concludes, “By recognizing the various categories of God’s Old Testament law we can readily understand the continuing validity of every stroke of God’s commandments for today. It is simply a matter of properly reading the law itself” (99).
Conclusion
I have outlined the basic
precepts of Bahnsen’s theonomic position. Much more could be stated and explored,
which Bahnsen does in meticulous detail in his writings. However, I do not have the space nor
is it my intention to summarize all the facets of his theonomic position. I
highly encourage those interested to read the three works cited in footnote 1. In
the next post, I will summarize Zanchi’s Natural Law theory.
~Romans 11:36~
[1] The background to Theonomy in Christian Ethics and No Other Standard is fascinating, as the first work was an expansion of his ThM thesis at Westminster Theological Seminary (1973) and the latter work was a response to the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary’s critique of Theonomy in Christian Ethics, some 17 years later, titled Theonomy: A Reformed Critique.
[2] Unfortunately, theonomy is highly misrepresented, not only on the internet and social media, but also in academic circles. Very few mainstream conservative Christian publishers publish theonomic writers. And therefore, they end up being left out of the debate, not getting the opportunity to defend and articulate their position. And this often leads to misrepresentation and straw-manning their opponents.
[3] Greg L. Bahnsen, By This Standard: The Authority of God’s Law Today (American Vision, 2015), 1.
[4] Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics (Covenant Media Press, 2021), xxxix.
[5] The three books mentioned total more than 1200 pages, so due to limited space, my summary will brief.
[6] Girolamo Zanchi, On the Law in General (Christian’s Library Press, 2012).
[7] The following section summarizing Zanchi’s background comes from the Introduction in On the Law.
[8] Jake Meador, “The Origins of Politics According to Althusius,” The Davenant Institute, last modified October 17, 2016, accessed October 7, 2023, https://davenantinstitute.org/origins-politics-according-althusius/.
[9] Bahnsen, By This Standard, 1. From here on out, I will parenthetically cite the page numbers for this work in the body of the article.
[10] This material for this section is taken from pages 63–88.
[11] These are my words/thoughts about 1Co 6:9–10.
Comments