The word "Theonomy" comes from two Greek words: Theos, "God," and nomos, "law."
"Theonomy" = "God's Law"
The word "anarchism" comes from two Greek words:
• "A" is the "alpha privative," meaning "not" or "the absence of."
• Archein is the Greek word "to rule over."
• The two vowels are separated by the letter "n" -- A(n)archism.
• The opposite of an "anarchist" is an "archist."
• Christians are prohibited from being "archists." (See Mark 10:42-45)
"Theonomy" sometimes has the connotation of "legalism," "Pharisaism," "Puritanism," "Theocracy," "mean-spirited," "executions all day long," and other ideas which suggest that
• God's Law is a grievous burden, or
• Theonomists distort and abuse The Bible.
Under a Theonomic State, we are led to believe, there would be no Freedom, only a totalitarian "church-state" where clergymen order the executions of adulterers, really cool homosexuals, and innocent little 5-year olds who expressed some displeasure about their parents.
"Anarchism" sometimes has the connotation of "lawless," which is clearly contrary to "Theonomy." The word has this connotation because "archists" (those who "rule over") want you to think that they are the source of law. They want us to believe that without "archists" (the State), there would be no law, only disorder. Theonomic Anarchists deny that "archists" are the source of law.
The Biggest Lie in the history of political science is that "anarchists" are bad for society, the implication being that "archists" are good for society.
What separates "Theonomists" from other Bible-believing Christians are the views that
• the Old Testament Scriptures are authoritative in our day
• "Law" is not in conflict with "Gospel"
Our brand of "Anarchism" is also known as "anarcho-capitalism."
It is the position of this website that God's Law is good for mankind and human society -- even the laws in the Old Testament.
It is the position of this website that the entity called "the State" or "the government" is in violation of God's Law -- even the laws in the Old Testament.
The goal of this website is to persuade Christians to become Theonomists.
The goal of this website is to persuade Theonomists to become anarchists.
Revelation to Israel. The true history of mankind was known to all mankind. God's supernatural activity in Israel was known to the Gentiles. For example, when the Israeli spies entered the Promised Land, a Canaanite prostitute said to them:I know that YHWH has given you this land and that a great fear of you has fallen on us, so that all who live in this country are melting in fear because of you. 10 We have heard how YHWH dried up the water of the Red Sea for you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to Sihon and Og, the two kings of the Amorites east of the Jordan, whom you completely destroyed. 11 When we heard of it, our hearts melted in fear and everyone’s courage failed because of you, for YHWH your God is God in heaven above and on the earth below.
Rahab used the name "YHWH" or "Jehovah," the specific name of the God of Abraham and Israel, not just a generic god. There is abundant evidence in the pages of the Bible that the Gentiles had heard (or read) the specifics of the Law God revealed to Israel. "Special Revelation," not just "General Revelation."
Covenant Theology
Here's where the "controversy" might start. Some Christians (like Dispensationalists) view the Old Testament as irrelevant, unless repeated by the New Testament. I'll add the text of some of the verses cited by Bahnsen.The law revealed by Moses and subsequent Old Testament authors was given within a covenantal administration of God's grace which included not only moral instruction, but gloriously and mercifully "promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come" (Westminster Confession of Faith VII.5). God's revelation itself teaches us that New Covenant believers, who have the law powerfully written on their hearts (Jeremiah 31:31ff.; Hebrews 8:8-12), no longer follow the foreshadows and administrative details of the old covenant. They are obsolete (Hebrews 8:13), having been imposed only until the time when the Messiah would come (Hebrews 9:10; Colossians 2:17). Jeremiah 31:33
But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my torah in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
This passage is quoted by the writer to the Hebrews:
Hebrews 8:8-128 For finding fault with them, He says,
“Behold, days are coming, says the Lord,When I will effect a new covenantWith the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;9 Not like the covenant which I made with their fathersOn the day when I took them by the handTo lead them out of the land of Egypt;For they did not continue in My covenant,And I did not care for them, says the Lord.10 “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of IsraelAfter those days, says the Lord:I will put My laws into their minds,And I will write them on their hearts.And I will be their God,And they shall be My people.11 “And they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen,And everyone his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’For all will know Me,From the least to the greatest of them.12 “For I will be merciful to their iniquities,And I will remember their sins no more.”
When Jeremiah prophesied these words, he said God would write His TORAH on the hearts of Christians. Not just so that we would have them memorized, but that we would obey them. How do you think the Hebrews of Jeremiah's day understood this prophecy? Theonomic? How do you think the Hebrews of Jesus' day understood this letter quoting Jeremiah? A repudiation of Jeremiah's Theonomy, or a strengthening of it? Jeremiah's thought is also seen in the prophet Ezekiel:
Ezekiel 11:19-2019 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them a heart of flesh, 20 that they may walk in My statutes and keep Mine ordinances, and do them. And they shall be My people, and I will be their God. Ezekiel 36:2727 And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and ye shall keep My judgments and do them.The Prophets of the New Covenant were Theonomic.
But lets' emphasize the last line in Bahnsen's paragraph:
God's revelation itself teaches us that New Covenant believers, who have the law powerfully written on their hearts (Jeremiah 31:31ff.; Hebrews 8:8-12), no longer follow the foreshadows and administrative details of the old covenant. They are obsolete (Hebrews 8:13), having been imposed only until the time when the Messiah would come (Hebrews 9:10; Colossians 2:17). "Theonomists" are often painted as simplistically or "legalistically" advocating the imposition of Mosaic (or Abrahamic) ceremonies, rituals, and liturgies. True, some Theonomists are "high-church," favoring a liturgical worship service, others are not. But both sides agree that we need to do our homework in the pages of the Bible and put our practices under the authority of God's Commandments, properly exegeted and interpreted.As Bahnsen puts it in his summary:
6. In regard to the Old Testament law, the New Covenant surpasses the Old Covenant in glory, power, and finality (thus reinforcing former duties). The New Covenant also supersedes the Old Covenant shadows, thereby changing the application of sacrificial, purity, and "separation" principles, redefining the people of God, and altering the significance of the promised land.
Thus, for example, on the basis of God's own instruction, we no longer resort to animal sacrifices at the temple and a Levitical priest (Hebrews 7-10); the cultic dietary laws have been set aside, for God has cleansed the unclean meats (representing the Gentiles) from which Israel was to be separate or holy (Acts 10).
Theonomy teaches, then, that in regard to the Old Testament law, the New Covenant surpasses the Old Covenant in glory, power, and finality. The New Covenant also supersedes the Old Covenant shadows, thereby changing the application of sacrificial, purity, and "separation" principles, redefining the people of God (e.g., Matthew 21:43), and also altering the significance of the promised land (e.g., Romans 4:13; 1 Peter 1:4). Who could disagree with this?What is crucial to notice here is that theonomic ethics comes to these conclusions on the basis of Biblical instruction. Men have no right to alter or spurn Old Testament laws on their own say-so, social traditions, or preconceived ideas about what is morally appropriate or inappropriate in the Mosaic law. They have no right to include more in the discontinuity between old and new covenants than can be warranted from divine revelation. Who could disagree with this?Theonomy thus teaches that we should presume that Old Testament laws continue to be morally binding in the New Testament unless they are rescinded or modified by further revelation. Theonomy's methodology stands squarely against that of dispensational theology which maintains that all of the Old Testament commandments should be deemed -- in advance of exegesis -- to be abrogated, unless they are repeated in the New Testament. Obviously Dispensationalists disagree with this.On this issue the words of our Lord are definitive and clear in Matthew 5:17-19. Jesus declared that he did not come [to] abrogate the Old Testament Law and Prophets, but to give them their full measure. John Murray wrote that Jesus' "fulfillment" of the law "refers to the function of validating and confirming the law and the prophets" (Principles of Conduct, p. 150). With respect to the Old Testament's moral standards, Jesus went on to insist that until the end of the physical cosmos, not the slightest stroke of the law will pass away. "Therefore whoever shall break one of these least commandments and teach men so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven." Jesus confirmed the validity of the law, even down to its least commandment, and censures anyone who dares to teach otherwise (without authorization from the Lawgiver Himself). New Testament Christians must operate on the presumption of continuity with the Old Testament moral code. Matthew 5:17-20 (KJV)17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to πληρῶσαι.18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be γένηται.There's a lot of heated debate about the meaning of those two Greek words. What do they mean? You don't have to know Greek to figure it out. What Jesus is saying is that He came to create conditions in which the follower of Christ is committed to obeying the law and the prophets, and teaching others to obey them as well. Some anti-theonomists claim that Jesus "fulfilled" God's Law for us, therefore we don't have to keep it (compare Hodge above). Sounds like the Pharisees, who said it was enough to keep their own man-made traditions instead of God's Law. The next verse makes clear what the Greek words mean:
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
"Doing" and "teaching" are not things Jesus came to destroy or to abrogate. He came to fulfill the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, of making a people for Himself who would be heartfelt Theonomists.
I've heard J.D. Hall on more than one video describe Bahnsen's exposition of Matthew 5:17-19 in Theonomy in Christian Ethics as taking up "half the book." If you have your copy of Bahnsen's book, place one finger at page 39, where Bahnsen begins his exposition of Matthew 5:17-19, and another finger at page 86, where he finishes looking at that passage. Hold all those pages between your thumb and index finger. Does it look like "half the book?" Maybe it seems like "half the book" to anti-theonomists because Bahnsen put "lotsa Greek stuff" in that chapter. (And they probably didn't read the other "half" either.)
Many people think that Theonomists are "Pharisees" and "legalists." But Jesus says His disciples are more righteous (Law-abiding) than those who use God's Word for their own selfish purposes:
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven
It is one of the biggest anti-Theonomic myths that the Pharisees were pro-nomian. To the contrary, the religious leaders of Jesus' day were "hypocrites," as Jesus repeatedly said. Outwardly they postured as Theonomists, but they were actually committed to evading God's Law, not putting it into practice. The legalistic religious leaders were the enemies of God and the enemies of Theonomy:
Mark 75 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?”6 He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. 7 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men —the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 11 But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, 13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”Theonomists are not Pharisees. Theonomists are "Bibliolators." They are the New Covenant believers Jeremiah and Ezekiel described.
King of KingsIn what sense is Jesus a "King" or "political" figure? Isn't that breaching wall of separation between religion and politics? Jesus is a political figure because he is the Christ, the Messiah, the King of kings. By His Word,He shall judge among many people,and rebuke strong nations afar off;Micah 4:3
His Word "rebukes" kings now. Presidents, Prime Ministers, and Dictators only wish that this rebuking did not begin until after His Second Coming.
Here is more from Bahnsen's summary. His article on the left continues below. We should presume that Old Testament standing laws[note26] continue to be morally binding in the New Testament, unless they are rescinded or modified by further revelation.[note27]26. Standing law" is used here for policy directives applicable over time to classes of individuals (e.g., do not kill; children, obey your parents; merchants, have equal measures; magistrates, execute rapists), in contrast to particular directions for an individual (e.g., the order for Samuel to anoint David at a particular time and place) or positive commands for distinct incidents (e.g., God's order for Israel to exterminate certain Canaanite tribes at a certain point in history).
27. By contrast, it is characteristic of dispensational theology to hold that Old Covenant commandments should be a priori deemed as abrogated - unless repeated in the New Testament (e.g., Charles Ryrie, "The End of the Law," Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. 124 [1967], pp. 239-242).
God's revealed standing laws are a reflection of His immutable moral character and, as such, are absolute in the sense of being non-arbitrary, objective, universal, and established in advance of particular circumstances (thus applicable to general types of moral situations).Christian involvement in politics calls for recognition of God's transcendent, absolute, revealed law as a standard by which to judge all social codes.Civil magistrates in all ages and places are obligated to conduct their offices as ministers of God, avenging divine wrath against criminals and giving an account on the Final Day of their service before the King of kings, their Creator and Judge.The general continuity which we presume with respect to the moral standards of the Old Testament applies just as legitimately to matters of socio-political ethics as it does to personal, family, or ecclesiastical ethics.The civil precepts of the Old Testament (standing 'judicial" laws) are a model of perfect social justice for all cultures, even in the punishment of criminals. Outside of those areas where God's law prescribes their intervention and application of penal redress, civil rulers are not authorized to legislate or use coercion (e.g., the economic marketplace).The morally proper way for Christians to correct social evils which are not under the lawful jurisdiction of the state is by means of voluntary and charitable enterprises or the censures of the home, church, and marketplace - even as the appropriate method for changing the political order of civil law is not violent revolution, but dependence upon regeneration, re-education, and gradual legal reform."Theonomic" ethics likewise rejects legal positivism and maintains that there is a "law above the (civil) law" to which appeal can be made against the tyranny of rulers and the anarchy of overzealous reformers alike (#9). Since Jesus Christ is Lord over all (cf. #3), civil magistrates are His servants and owe obedience to His revealed standards for them (#9). There is no Biblically based justification (cf. #5) for exempting civil authorities from responsibility to the universal standards of justice (cf. #7) found in God's Old Testament revelation (#10). Therefore, in the absence of Biblically grounded argumentation which releases the civil magistrate from Old Testament social norms (cf. #5, #6), it follows from our previous premises that in the exercise of their offices rulers are morally responsible to obey the revealed standards of social justice in the Old Testament law (#11). This does not mean, however, that civil rulers have unlimited authority to intrude just anywhere into the affairs of men and societies (# 11 #12); their legitimate sphere is restricted to what God's word has authorized them to do -- thus calling for a limited role for civil government. Finally, Christians are urged to use persuasive and "democratic" means of social reform - nothing like the strong-arm tactics slanderously attributed to the theonomic program (#12).[note28]
28. For example, the main thrust of a widely read article on theonomic ethics by Rodney Clapp in Christianity Today, vol. 31, no. 3 (Feb. 20, 1987), was captured in its title: "Democracy as Heresy." He recklessly accuses theonomists of seeking "the abolition of democracy" (p. 17), when surely Clapp is aware that the word 'democracy' is susceptible to an incredibly wide range of definitions and connotations (e.g., from an institution of direct rule by every citizen without mediating representatives to a governmental procedure where representatives are voted in and out of office by the people, to the simple concepts of majority vote or social equality, etc.). Theonomists are opposed to some of those ideas, but surely not to what is commonly understood by the word: namely, democratic procedures for choosing representatives to rule. Indeed, in reply to Mr. Clapp's inflammatory rhetoric, Dr. Gary North very appropriately pointed out as a historian the irony that it was precisely our Puritan (and theonomic) forefathers who fought for and established this kind of "democracy" in the Western world!
That general continuity which we presume with respect to the moral standards of the Old Testament applies to political ethics. John Murray called it a fatal error "if it is thought that the Christian revelation, the Bible, does not come to the civil authority with a demand for obedience to its direction and precept as stringent and inescapable as it does to the individual, to the family, and to the church" All political entities are required to be "Theonomic." Any doctrine of "separation of church and state" which says otherwise is a lie. OK, we've surveyed the first controversial issue regarding "Theonomy" -- the presumption that the Old Testament Scriptures are authoritative in the New Covenant age.Now here's where we diverge from Bahnsenian or Rushdoonian Theonomy.
Our claim is that God's Law prohibits the formation and maintenance of "the State."We also believe that God's Law prohibits the violent overthrow of the State.I guess that makes us "anarcho-pacifists."
Anarcho-TheonomyBahnsen says entities calling themselves "the State" or "the government" or "the civil magistrate" are obligated to follow God's Commandments in the Scriptures (including commandments in "The Law and the Prophets"). I agree. I also believe entities calling themselves • "La Cosa Nostra" ("Our Thing"), • "Yakuza," • "Solntsevskaya Bratva" ("Russian Mafia"), • "Sinaloa Cartel," or • any of dozens of other similar criminal entities,are also morally obligated to follow God's Commandments in the Old Testament.
In addition to being the Head of the church, Christ has been made King over all other earthly kings (1 Timothy 6:15), the "ruler of the kings of the earth" (Revelation 1:5); to Him by right they owe allegiance and obedience. He has been invested with all authority in heaven as well as on earth (Matthew 28:18), and it is to be our prayer that God's will be done on earth just as perfectly as it is in heaven (Matthew 6:10). Jehovah has established His Son as King upon His holy hill, and thus the kings and judges of the earth are now required to submit reverently to Him and serve the Lord (Psalm 2:6-12). What happens if entities calling themselves "civil governments" take seriously the Law of God, submit to Christ the King and serve Him as Lord? What happens if "governments" repent of theft, murder and vengeance? I would say they would "go out of business." Nowhere in Scripture does God command human beings to conquer other people groups, or form "the State." By definition, "The State" violates God's Law by stealing, murdering, and taking vengeance. Most of the Bible is filled with criticisms of empires. Entire books are dedicated to chronicling kings and judges. In spite of this, most Christians believe the Body of Christ should not be involved in politics -- that is, should not oppose the most concentrated, well-funded machinery of evil on the planet.Christians in general -- even non-Theonomists -- have a generally positive view of "the State." Our contention is that the Bible has a generally negative view of the State.
Of course, God works all things -- even evil things -- together for good.
So theonomy teaches that civil rulers are morally obligated to enforce those laws of Christ, found throughout the Scriptures, which are addressed to magistrates (as well as to refrain from coercion in areas where God has not prescribed their intervention). As Paul wrote in Romans 13:1-10, magistrates -- even the secular rulers of Rome -- are obligated to conduct their offices as "ministers of God," avenging God's wrath (compare 13:4 with 12:19) against criminal evil-doers. They will give an account on the Final Day of their service before the King of kings, their Creator and Judge. Christian involvement in politics calls for recognition of God's transcendent, absolute, revealed law as a standard by which to judge all social codes and political policies. The Scottish theologian, William Symington, well said:"It is the duty of nations, as subjects of Christ, to take His law as their rule. They are apt to think enough that they take, as their standard of legislation and administration, human reason, natural conscience, public opinion or political expediency. None of these, however, nor indeed all of them together, can supply a sufficient guide in affairs of state"(Messiah the Prince, p. 234).
I believe a strict Theonomic application would not only shrink the size of government -- by cutting welfare, education, and other activities which are carried out more humanely, effectively and beneficially by families, charities, and churches -- but would abolish civil governments entirely.
Christian Anarchism in a Nutshell
God created human beings in a social form we would call "Patriarchy." When Noah got off the ark with his family, all human beings existed in a state of "Patriarchy." Abraham the Patriarch had perhaps thousands of people in his family as a result of evangelism, domestic apprenticeship, job-creation, charity, and home-church. Romans 13, a much-misunderstood passage, prohibits Christians from violently resisting demonic empires, but does not condone imperial conquest and plunder of the weak by the strong.
Romans 13: A Christian Anarchist PerspectiveJesus prohibits His followers from being "archists" (Mark 10:42-45), which logically means Christians, while orderly and peaceful at all times, are technically "an-archists."
Theonomic Oligarchy?I agree that everyone -- civil magistrates, mafia hit-men, prostitutes -- are obligated to submit to Christ by obeying His inscriptured Word. I worry that many Theonomists envision little more than a "Theonomic Oligarchy" in which a small plurality of Theonomic voter-activists elect a slate of "Theonomic candidates" to political office to execute the unrepentant demographic. (I also consider myself a "Theocrat.")
The Apostle Paul affirmed that one of the uses of the Old Testament law which we know to be good is the restraint of criminal behavior (1 Timothy 1:8-10). Jesus endorsed the penal sanctions of the Old Testament law, condemning those who would make them void by their own human traditions (Matthew 15:3-4). For Matthew 15, see Mark 7, above.Paul likewise upheld the penal standards of the Mosaic judicial law (Acts 25:11). Here we have the first use of the phrase "Mosaic judicial law." This raises many questions.First, with regard to Paul in Acts 25. An argument can be made that Paul did not "uphold the standards of the Mosaic judicial law," but rather appealed to Roman law under Caesar. This assumes that his Jewish opponents were defenders of the "Mosaic judicial law" (which they were not, as we have seen). The "Mosaic judicial law" is not an issue in Acts 25. Paul isn't approving his own execution any more than Jeremiah did:
Acts 25:1111 For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar.
Jeremiah 26:11 Then spake the priests and the prophets unto the princes and to all the people, saying, This man is worthy to die; for he hath prophesied against this city, as ye have heard with your ears.12 Then spake Jeremiah unto all the princes and to all the people, saying,14 As for me, behold, I am in your hand: do with me as seemeth good and meet unto you.15 But know ye for certain, that if ye put me to death, ye shall surely bring innocent blood upon yourselves, and upon this city, and upon the inhabitants thereof: for of a truth the Lord hath sent me unto you to speak all these words in your ears.
Bahnsen makes an assumption in Acts 25 based on another text, Romans 13. Bahnsen believes that in Romans 13, God authorizes, or even mandates, the existence of an entity we call "the State." As we said above, all human beings, and all bodies, corporations, organizations, networks, syndicates, leagues, etc., in which human beings may associate themselves, are obligated to obey all of God's Law in the Bible. This includes entities we might call "the State" or "the Mafia."
But Romans 13 is addressed to Christians in their capacity as "private" citizens. It is not a mandate for "the State." In Romans 13, Paul calls "the State" "the powers," a term which everywhere in the New Testament (and in the Greco-Roman world at the time) signified a demonic nexus of tyranny. Paul is continuing his theme in Romans 12, which is to submit to evil in a "pacifist" manner, rather than respond to evil with more evil (violent revolution, in the case of the State). Romans 13 has arguably been the most disastrously misinterpreted passage in the Bible.
Hundreds of millions of people murdered.Billions of people enslaved.Trillions of dollars of property confiscated or destroyed.In the 20th century alone.
We have undertaken an analysis of Romans 13 from an anarcho-theonomic perspective here:
www.Romans13.com
Second, is there such a thing as ""Mosaic judicial law?" Did God give Israel laws through Moses which were intended to be carried out by an entity we today call "the State?" No.
The author of Hebrews leaves us no doubt about the inspired New Testament perspective on the Mosaic penalties, saying "every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward" (2:2). God requires that judges not punish too harshly or too leniently, but assign a penalty proportionate to the crime (cf. "an eye for an eye..."). To uphold genuine justice in their punishments, magistrates need the direction of God's law. In observing the law which God revealed to Israel, all nations should respond "what great nation is there that has statutes and ordinances so righteous as all this law?" (Deuteronomy 4:8). Nearly all scholars are agreed that the lex talionis ("eye for an eye") was intended by God to temper the quest for vengeance which those in power often sought. Lamech wanted seven eyes for one of his own. (See R.J. Rushdoony, "The Song of Lamech," Revolt Against Maturity, 97-101.) God's Law is clearly a limit on tyrannical State power.But is there in God's Law a requirement or mandate for the existence of "the State?"
I think it is an error to speak of "the judicial law." Here's why.Bahnsen speaks of "penalties," "punishments," and the "penal law." These phrases carry with them assumptions about the legitimacy of political institutions. (The word "political" comes from the Greek word polis.)
Even if you agree with these assumptions, anarcho-capitalists have shown how "judicial law" or "penal codes" can be more equitably, efficiently, and humanely administered by competing judicial agencies in a freed market, rather than a centralized judicial monopoly called "the State."
But I think we have completely mis-read the "judicial law." I think part of what Bahnsen calls "judicial law" is actually part of the category of law which Theonomists call "the ceremonial law."For the most orthodox of Theonomic reasons, I believe "capital punishment" -- a liturgical shedding of blood -- was a "ceremonial" law, and is therefore abolished. For all crimes. That might surprise many opponents of Theonomy, who assume that "Theonomy" means nothing if not the execution of homosexuals and adulterers.
This is obviously a controversial position, and requires something of a "paradigm shift."
Imagine someone who says that the abolition of animal sacrifices commanded in the Mosaic law would lead to social chaos. "Those daily sacrifices were a powerful reminder of the odiousness of sin and God's holy and righteous standards," they might say. "Abolish the daily sacrifices and society will plunge into depravity and lawlessness." Sounds like a compelling argument. But shedding animal blood is a blasphemous affront to the work of Christ on the cross.
Shedding human blood is too.
The case for "capital punishment" as a "ceremonial law" can be made in three passages:
Deuteronomy 21:1-9 prescribes the shedding of blood in cases of unsolved homicide. All Christians -- Theonomist and non-Theonomist alike -- agree that the shedding of blood required in cases of unsolved homicide is a "ceremonial" requirement.But when the homicide suspect is found, tried, and convicted, all of the sudden that ceremonial shedding of blood is called an "execution," part of the "judicial law."The first recorded command for the shedding of blood is in Genesis 9:4-6. The subject is blood, not State power.What we call "capital punishment" has as its central purpose atonement. Blood must be shed to make atonement, according to Numbers 35:33.These three passages establish the "theology of capital punishment," and show it to be a ritual shedding of blood to make atonement. In our modern minds, these passages are filed under "capital punishment" and given a civil/judicial interpretation. But that's not a Biblical "theology of capital punishment." That's a secular/Roman law handling of the texts.
Other crimes which we call "capital crimes" are spoken of in the Bible in the same way as murder. For example, in Leviticus 20, it is repeatedly said of those who commit capital crimes, "their blood shall be upon them," and not upon a scapegoat or sacrificial lamb.
We are not allowed to shed blood after Calvary. Literally implementing Deuteronomy 21:1-9 would be an insult to the blood of Christ, everyone agrees. But the same holds true with Numbers 35:33. Same with Genesis 9:4-6 (and Genesis 8:20f.) We have to come up with other responses to "capital crimes" consistent with the rest of God's Law. This is, admittedly, a big assignment.
In any case, "capital punishment" -- the ultimate power -- was given to "Noah and his sons" (Genesis 9) as a family, not as "the State" Even if blood still needs to be shed, it can be done on a patriarchal level without the monopolistic institution we call "the State."Rather than shedding blood, Theonomists should work for Christian Reconstruction in families, schools, businesses, and all other areas of life, and then blanket society with voluntary dispute resolution organizations. There is a tendency among some Theonomists to focus on executions and ignore the much larger task of social reconstruction which will ultimately diminish the number of murders and other "capital crimes." As Christians gain social influence, even the unconverted will feign Theonomic obedience and come under the market institutions and social order of a global Christocracy.
I don't consider "restitution" a civil "punishment." When one repents, one has a duty to undo the damage done by his sin. The duty of restitution stands even in the absence of socialism, fascism, or any other form of "the State." It is a duty of restoration, and Biblical commands regarding restitution are the path to justice as righteousness, not "justice" as state inflicted vengeance ("punishment").Replacing "the State" is a big job, but a necessary one.
Although Israel as a political body has expired -- and along with it its judicial law as a constitution -- the general equity of those judicial laws is still required (Westminster Confession XIX.4). Similarly, when a public library goes out of business (and your library card thus expires), the truth of what was written in its books is not abolished or changed. Political codes today ought to incorporate the moral requirements which were culturally illustrated in the God-given, judicial laws of Old Testament Israel. George Gillespie, widely regarded as the most authoritative theologian at the Westminster Assembly, wrote: "the will of God concerning civil justice and punishments is no where so fully and clearly revealed as in the judicial law of Moses.... He who was punishable by death under the judicial law is punishable by death still" ("Wholesome Severity Reconciled...," 1645). I agree with Rushdoony that the Westminster Confession at this point is corrupted by "natural law" thinking inherited from statist Greco-Roman philosophy. The Reformers and Puritans were not as consistently Biblical in their thinking about Biblical Law as Rushdoony was centuries later. As someone ordained in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, which is confessionally tied to the Westminster Standards, Bahnsen was unable to break free from those standards where they were not consistently Biblical. More here: The Theonomy DebateThe concept of "judicial law" in the Bible is a hold-over from Greco-Roman thinking. "Judicial law" is a concept imposed on the Bible rather than exegeted (from the text of the Bible). God did not give laws to "the State" in a way that approves of the perpetual existence of the State. (Deuteronomy 17 should not be separated from 1 Samuel 8.)
Those who do not favor taking God's law as the ultimate standard for civil morality and public justice will be forced to substitute some other criterion. The civil magistrate cannot function without some standard of good and evil. If that standard is not the revealed law of God, then in some form or expression it will have to be a law of men -- the standard of self-law or autonomy. Men must choose in their civil affairs to be governed by God's law (theonomy), to be ruled by tyrants, or acquiesce to increasing social degeneracy. It may seem like "Theonomy" is all about politics. This should not be the case. The bulk of Bahnsen's lengthy treatise on Theonomy does not discuss politics, but only the basic concept of the abiding validity of the Old Testament generally. More specifically, the book deals with the basic objections to God's commanding us at all, which are often the "Law vs. Grace" or "Law vs. Gospel" objections. This is really the heart of most objections to Theonomy. That and executing adulterers.
Bahnsen's particular application of Theonomy to the State is not the Theonomic thesis itself, but only an "application of the thesis." Ditto for applications made by R.J. Rushdoony and Gary North. Indeed, the section in Bahnsen's book which does address politics is called "Application of the Thesis to the State" (p. 315).
Bahnsen writes in his summary volume, By This Standard: The Authority of God's Law Today,
[T]hose who agree with the foundational conclusion of [Theonomy] -- that God's Law is binding today unless Scripture reveals otherwise -- may very well disagree among themselves over particular matters in interpreting what God's law demands at this or that point, or ... may disagree over how these demands should be followed today (p. 9).
Leaders of the "Christian Reconstruction" movement have had their disagreements on the application of the Theonomic thesis. Rushdoony and North disagreed to such an extent that they weren't even talking to each other! Bahnsen disagreed with Rushdoony on several issues, as we've noted.
"Theonomy" means God has the right to command man. It does not mean "the State" does.
SummaryGod created human beings in a Family. The institution of a priesthood was temporary. The creation of "the State" was an act of rebellion against God's Law. That means society should be a patriarchal (family-centered) Christocracy.
Where in God's Law are human beings commanded to create an entity which has the right to compel other people, and the right to fund this compulsion by the forcible extraction of wealth ("taxation")?
Note: verses which command people to "submit" to such compulsion are not mandates for such compulsion. Jesus says (Matthew 5:41) that we are not to resist conscription by a foreign military occupation army, but Jesus was not saying it was morally mandatory for Italy (Rome) to invade Israel.
