|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 10, 2023 11:18:37 GMT -5
Theonomy: A Reformed Baptist Assessment.
A Preface to the Series
Some time around 1990—I do not know the exact year—I was asked to deliver a series of lectures to the old Trinity Ministerial Academy on the subject of Theonomy or Christian Reconstruction. The result was a series of lectures entitled, Theonomy: A Reformed Baptist Assessment. These lectures have been available online for many years if you knew what to search for and where to look. In the few years after I wrote them, I made some feeble attempts to publish them. The Publishers I contacted were not interested in what a Reformed Baptist might think about this subject.
In subsequent years it was my impression that the popularity of Theonomy faded with the fading influence and deaths of its major founders: Rushdoony, North, and Bahnsen. Strangely, or perhaps not so strangely, with the precipitous decline of our culture, a form of Theonomy has been making a comeback in recent years. I regard Theonomy as an overreaction to the degradation of our culture.
It is not an overreaction, let me say, in the condemnation of the sexual perversity and moral madness that is all around us. No condemnation seems too strong for the LGBTQ mania and Transgender wickedness into which our country seems to be descending.
It is, however, an over-reaction in its view of how the church and Christian community should respond to it. It is an overreaction in terms of the theonomic doctrines it is adopting in response to this fall off of a cultural cliff.
And that leads me to say something else …
Theonomy does not just mean God’s law, my young Padawans. If Theonomists were only arguing for a return to the Ten Commandments as the moral law for human life, right-minded Reformed thinkers would not and could not reject it. Theonomy—though it means God’s law literally—means much more and much else theologically.
My impression till recently was that the recent resurgence of Theonomy was actually a somewhat modified form of Theonomy not guilty of certain of the extremes of its original founders. But now I am informed that some of the very well-known Reformed Christians who have enlisted in this movement are citing with much approval its founders. For instance, Rushdoony himself was recently quoted.
All this makes me feel that I should dust off my lectures on Theonomy. I am sure they are dated in terms of some of the contemporary discussion. Yet, they are solidly based on what the founders of Theonomy—Rushdoony, North, and Bahnsen—actually taught. It may serve the interests of truth in several respects, then, if in the coming weeks I make available in this blog my 30-year old, but I hope still relevant lectures on this subject.
Sam Waldron
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 10, 2023 11:19:25 GMT -5
This blog is part 2 in a series titled: “Theonomy: A Reformed Baptist Assesment.” To read part 1, you can click here: cbtseminary.org/theonomy-a-reformed-baptist-assessment-sam-waldron/
Theonomy: A Reformed Baptist Assessment
The Sources of Theonomic Development
It is not my goal to provide a thorough overview of Christian Reconstruction. Others have done this well. ((For a personal, interesting, and much more extensive introduction to Christian Reconstruction, see H. Wayne House’s and Tommy Ice’s Dominion Theology: Blessing or Cuse, (Multnomah, Portland, 1988), pp. 13f. )) Something must be said, however, about the basic sources of this movement (and of this assessment) and the major tenets of Theonomy or Christian Reconstruction.
I. Basic Sources
A. Rousas J. Rushdoony
Theonomy, or as it is also called, Christian Reconstruction, has for its father R. J. Rushdoony and his prolific pen. Among his many books, the most important ones are, first and foremost, The Institutes of Biblical Law and his brief treatment entitled, The Meaning of Postmillennialism: God’s Plan for Victory. Rushdoony ascribes to Cornelius Van Til the greatest influence on his thinking. Rushdoony is the master influence in three Theonomic organs: The Chalcedon Foundation, “The Journal of Reconstruction,” and a newsletter entitled “The Chalcedon Report.” ((Peter J. Leithart, “An Interview with Dr. R.J. Rushdoony,” The Counsel of Chalcedon (Sept. 1985): 14-17))
B. Greg Bahnsen
It is probably due to Mr. Bahnsen that Christian Reconstructionism owes the name, Theonomy. His Theonomy in Christian Ethics, with a foreword by Rushdoony, is perhaps the single most influential and controversial of the Theonomic literature. He is also well-known for his book, Homosexuality: A Biblical View. This book illustrates what is best from the Theonomic perspective. Mr. Bahnsen is now an Orthodox Presbyterian Church minister in California. He graduated from Westminster Theological Seminary and was formerly the Professor of Apologetics at Reformed Theological Seminary (RTS) in Jackson, Mississippi. Though a fine apologist in the presuppositional school of thought, he was dismissed from RTS in a dispute over Theonomy. The Covenant Tape Ministry distributes tapes of his teaching.
C. Gary North
Gary North was formerly editor of the “Journal of Christian Reconstruction.” He is the editor of numerous works, including, The Theology of Christian Resistance and The Tactics of Christian Resistance. He is the author of a popularization of Christian Reconstruction entitled, Unconditional Surrender: God’s Program for Victory, as well as Backward Christian Soldiers and volume 1 of an economic commentary on the Bible entitled The Dominion Covenant: Genesis. He also contributed to The Failure of the American Baptist Culture, edited by James B. Jordan.
These are probably the most well-known Christian Reconstructionists. There are, however, several other prolific spokesmen for the Theonomic movement. Among them may be mentioned David Chilton, Gary Demar, Peter Leithart, Ray Sutton, Joe Kickasola, Joseph C. Morecraft III, and at one time James B. Jordan.
II. Major Tenets
The Christian Reconstructionists have defined the major tenets of their system. They are presuppositional apologetics, predestination, their view of the abiding validity of the law in exhaustive detail, and postmillennialism. North writes,
Mr. Clapp lists three key doctrines of the Reconstructionists: presuppositional apologetics, biblical law, and postmillennialism. He left out one crucial doctrine: predestination. These were the four that David Chilton and I listed in our essay. “Apologetics and Strategy” in Christianity and Civilization 3 (1983). ((Gary North, Honest Reporting as Heresy: My Response to Christianity Today (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1987), 7. North and the Tyler Theonomists have attempted to add a fifth major tenet, the covenant concept as the key to the Bible, history, and Christian living, but there is not general agreeemtn among Theonomists about this. Cf. the citation in this footnote.))
As we begin a preliminary assessment of Theonomy, we will comment further on these self-confessed distinctives of Christian Reconstruction.Sam Waldron
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 10, 2023 11:20:14 GMT -5
*This series is a republication of lectures written by Dr. Waldron near the end of the 1980s. This is Part 3 of a series titled “Theonomy: A Reformed Baptist Assessment.”
For Part 1, you can click here: cbtseminary.org/theonomy-a-reformed-baptist-assessment-sam-waldron/
For Part 2, you can click here: cbtseminary.org/the-sources-of-theonomic-development-sam-waldron/
Theonomy: A Reformed Baptist Assessment. Pt.3
The Challenges of Critiquing Theonomy
I. The Necessity of Honesty
There is peculiar danger in caricaturing Christian Reconstructionism. This is aptly illustrated by the recent article in “Christianity Today” by Rodney Clapp and the rebuttal written by Gary North. They have entitled “Democracy as Heresy” and “Honest Reporting as Heresy: My Response to Christianity Today.”[1]
Several misconceptions of the teaching of Christian Reconstructionism do exist, and the Theonomic perspective seems unusually susceptible to misunderstanding. Some of these misconceptions are:
— Theonomists do not believe in the separation of church and state.
— Theonomists want to impose Christian government on the U. S. by force and revolution.
— Theonomists are seeking a one-world Christian government.
— Theonomists believe that the Mosaic Law should be the constitution of every nation.
— Theonomists believe that we are saved by the law.
— Theonomists believe that a terrible crisis will usher in the millennial period in the next few years.
Compare for other misconceptions Bahnsen’s Preface to the Second Edition of Theonomy.[2] Some of these beliefs may be held in some form by an occasional Theonomists. Yet even in those cases, none of these ideas is better than a half-truth. None are warranted as general characterizations of Theonomy by a fair assessment of their literature.
Why is Theonomy so susceptible to misunderstanding? Two reasons may be given. First, the Theonomists themselves are frequently guilty of violent or extreme rhetoric in their writings which gives unnecessary occasion for misunderstanding. Father Rushdoony set the course in this regard by charging Calvin with “heretical nonsense,”[3] the Westminster Confession with “confusion” and “nonsense,”[4] and those tainted with Pietism with being “nothing people, pious poops.”[5] North also illustrates this tendency by calling Meredith C. Kline and millions of other Christians “full-time Christian antinomians.”[6] He also offends by such descriptions as these of the Third World when he writes,
He is correct when he cites me as saying that the poverty of the Third World stems from its commitment to socialism and outright demonism. I have said that these societies are cursed. I would now add that the depopulation of central Africa from AIDS is a direct judgment of God on the universal promiscuity of these nations. God will not be mocked.[7]
James B. Jordan is known as a Theonomist, but in a letter to me, he states, “I do not consider myself a Theonomist.” Later he describes himself as a “borderline C[hristian] R[econstructionists].” Jordan states in the same letter, “I agree with you regarding the extreme rhetoric of many Christian Reconstructionists, and I have criticized it in print.”[8]
The second reason which may be given for the frequent misrepresentation of Theonomy is that the position they are advocating runs completely against the grain of 20th century American thinking. Though it is no doubt true that they throw around the charge of “antinomianism” with undue frequency, the fact is that most American and evangelical thinking in our day is grossly sub-Biblical in its view of the law. Frequently one’s reaction to those seeking to refute Theonomy is to feel more sympathy for the Theonomists than those attempting to refute their supposed heresies. Even at those points where one is disposed to disagree with them, for instance, in their advocacy of civil punishment for public blasphemy or idolatry, the fact is that revered fathers in the Reformed faith agree with them, not the modern consensus. Further, the modern consensus against such things–no matter how much we may agree with it in practice–is often defended or based on ways of thinking that undermine basic truths of Christianity.
II. The Problem of Diversity
One major difficulty in critiquing Theonomy is the diversity of thought within the ranks of Christian Reconstructionists. One must be careful not to treat some particular application of the Mosaic Law, for instance, as standard among all Theonomists. There is substantial difference of opinion among “Theonomists” as to the specific application of Old Testament laws. Bahnsen makes this point in the Preface to the Second Edition of his Theonomy.
Our outline of the Theonomic perspective indicates that it pertains to fundamental, underlying ethical principles and is not, as such, committed to distinctive interpretations and applications of the Old Testament moral directives. In the nature of the case, these principles leave plenty of room for disagreements in Biblical exegesis (for prescriptive premises), observation of the world (for factual premises), and reasoning (for logically drawing an application). Thus Theonomists will not necessarily agree with each other’s every interpretation and ethical conclusion. For instance, many (like myself) do not affirm R. J. Rushdoony’s view of the dietary laws, Gary North’s view of home mortgages, James Jordan’s stance on automatic infant communion (without sessional examination), or David Chilton’s attitudes toward bribery and “ripping off” the unbeliever. Nevertheless, all share the basic perspective reflected in the above ten propositions.[9]
North distances himself from certain of Rushdoony’s peculiarities:
So far as I know, all of the younger Reconstructionists reject Mr. Rushdoony’s Armenian (note not Arminian) view of the patriarchal family (p. 19). This is a major area of disagreement within the Reconstructionist camp. The “Tyler Group,” as well as Greg Bahnsen, holds to the biblical nuclear family, where the departure of sons and daughters to set up new covenantal family units (Gen. 2:24) establishes a clear covenantal break with parents. No man will tolerate living in his father’s household with his wife and children unless forced to by custom or economics. Another Armenian church practice that the article refers to is the practice of sacrificing animals at the door of the church, which Rushdoony discusses in The Institutes of Biblical Law, pp. 782-3. Unquestionably, we in Tyler would utterly reject such a practice as heretical throwback to Old Testament “shadows” that were completely fulfilled by the death and resurrection of Christ. It is our rejection of what Mr. Clapp correctly identifies as Rushdoony’s “Armenian Connection” that ultimately led to the split in the Reconstructionist camp: Tyler vs. Vallecito.[10]
It is also well-known that Bahnsen as a believer in the Christian Sabbath[11] disagrees with North’s vitriolic attack on this doctrine.[12] In fairness, therefore, to Theonomy one must distinguish their basic perspectives and their necessary applications from the particular applications or aberrations of individual writers.
III. The Difficulty of Volume
One cannot but be impressed by the enormous volume of literature that Christian Reconstructionism is spawning and much of it is composed of technical theological writings. To make concrete the monumental size of the task, let it be noted that simply reading Rushdoony’s Institutes and Bahnsen’s Theonomy would mean reading well in excess of 2000 pages of technical theology. The sheer volume of literature is another difficulty standing in the way of accurate assessment.
IV. The Urgency of the Study
One cannot, however, ignore the Christian Reconstructionists in the hope that they will go away because of these difficulties. There is every indication that they are commanding more and more support and allegiance, or at least are having a formative impact on many prominent Christian leaders. Two prominent leaders who have felt their impact are, in fact, Pat Robertson and D. James Kennedy. In most, if not all, of the conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, Theonomy is a very live issue. Bahnsen elaborately documents the debate stirred by his book alone in his Preface to the Second Edition of Theonomy.[13]
House and Ice summarize the necessity of their critique of Christian Reconstruction by the following statements. They apply with intensified propriety to those who, unlike House and Ice, identify themselves with historic, Reformed theology.
The Reconstructionists cannot be dismissed as a passing, therefore irrelevant, side-current on the course of evangelical thought. As will be discussed later, the Reconstructionists have garnered support from such disparate groups as old-time fundamentalists, charismatics, and some members of the evangelical intelligentsia….
The Christian Reconstruction movement deserves analysis because of its thoughtful, startling, and thorough challenge to contemporary evangelicalism and American life generally. Its views must be considered with care by what Thomas Jefferson called a “candid world.”[14]
V. The Danger of Overreaction
The clear and present danger of overreacting to Theonomy has already been clearly illustrated in Calvinistic Baptist circles. Carl W. Bogue writing in the “Covenanter Witness,” reminds us of this danger:
At the 1980 Council of Baptist Theology, Ronald McKinney, Jon Zens, and others known as Reformed Baptists charted a new course, denying their previously held commitment to covenant theology. McKinney and Zens told me privately what McKinney repeated in his opening address, namely, their conviction that covenant theology would of necessity lead to the doctrines of infant baptism and Theonomy. Since they were convinced these were wrong, they repudiated covenant theology.[15]
One must face the issue of Theonomy now before it is faced in the crucible of the pastorate or other forms of church leadership. When one sees it creating division and disaster in the church or danger for the individual sheep, as it has in many cases, it is easy under the pressure of the pastorate to overreact theologically. If, however, we overreact to Theonomy, we may well throw out several babies with the bath water.
VI. The Expression of Appreciation
It would be imbalanced and out of due perspective, if it were not noted that at a number of points those who embrace a “Theonomic” perspective are to be commended. As the previous delineation of the major tenets of Theonomy make clear, there is much with which one can find agreement in their writings. We wholeheartedly embrace both the Reformed doctrine of predestination and the consistently Reformed apologetic known as presuppositionalism. Furthermore, one cannot but appreciate the high supernaturalist, inerrancy view of Scripture so straightforwardly embraced and exemplified in their writings, especially when it is contrasted with that found in Neo-orthodox and Neo-evangelical writings. Further, no one with a Reformed bone in their body can fail to appreciate the consistent emphasis on the sovereign prerogatives of God and His Word over every area of human life, whether it be civil, economic, or some other area.
Other areas of appreciation and agreement will be enunciated later. Though these points of agreement do not alleviate our deep concern over the points with which we differ, they do put into perspective the critique we are about to engage.
VII. The Areas of Criticism
Having warned the student of the various pitfalls surrounding an evaluation of Theonomy and placed the present critique into perspective, it is now necessary to articulate two areas that are to be addressed critically in this assessment of Theonomy. Four tenets of Christian Reconstruction were delineated above. Only two of those tenets are distinctive of the movement. Only those two will come up for particular criticism in this assessment. Speaking generally those areas are their distinctive postmillennialism and their distinctive view of biblical law. We shall describe those two areas as Theonomic Ethics and Theonomic Postmillenialism.
VIII.The Method of Approach
Both of the two areas just mentioned are intimately related to the subject of the Theocratic Kingdom of Israel. It is clearly the perpetuity of the social ethics of the Theocratic Kingdom which form the distinctive heart of Theonomic Ethics. A cursory knowledge of the debate over Theonomy makes clear that it centers upon the subject of the judicial law of Israel. Theonomy has focused its attention on the cultural, economic, and, therefore, political applications of the law of Israel. This, however, specifically confronts us with the subject of the Theocratic Kingdom of Israel and its place in redemptive history.
Furthermore, it is the renewed glory of the Theocratic Kingdom which forms the grand goal and focus of Theonomic Postmillennialism. Yet further, as we shall see, Theonomic Ethics and Theonomic Postmillennialism are connected for Christian Reconstructionists. By way of Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 obedience to Theonomic Ethics is by Theonomists made the cause of which Theonomic Postmillennialism is the effect. For these reasons, there is no more foundational issue for the right assessment of Christian Reconstruction than the subject of the Theocratic Kingdom in redemptive history.
Any more than superficial acquaintance with the Bible vindicates the assertion that the Bible is the chronicle of and commentary upon God’s redemptive activity in history. The Bible is not first of all a systematic theology, catechism, or an ethical code. It is redemptive history. This is very significant for our purposes because by asking about the place of the Theocratic Kingdom in redemptive history we inquire about that which is at the heart of the Bible. Does the redemptive history revealed to us in the Bible permit the idea that the law of the theocratic Kingdom of Israel and in particular its judicial law remains abidingly valid in exhaustive detail in the present phase of redemptive history? Does the redemptive history revealed in the Bible allow for the possibility that millennial blessings of the Theocratic type expected by Theonomy await the church before the return of Christ? When the questions are put this way, it becomes clear that nothing is more important in weighing Theonomy than a penetrating understanding of redemptive history as it is presented and structured in the Bible.
This assessment will, therefore, commence by endeavoring to lay the foundation of a proper understanding of the Theocratic Kingdom in redemptive history. This foundation will then be applied and elaborated in a consideration of Theonomic Ethics and Theonomic Postmillennialism. This positive method of approach will be characteristic of this assessment as a whole. We will endeavor to set forth the positive teaching of the Bible about these matters and allow that teaching to call into question the peculiarities of Christian Reconstruction.
[1]Rodney Clapp, “Democracy as Heresy,” Christianity Today,(Feb. 20, 1987), pp. 17-23; Gary North, “Honest Reporting as Heresy…”
[2]Greg Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian Reformed Publishing Company, 1984), pp. xx-xxi
[3]Rousas J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Craig Press, 1976), p. 9
[4] Ibid, p. 551
[5]Rousas J. Rushdoony, The Meaning of Postmillennialism: God’s Plan for Victory, (Fairfax, Virginia, Thoburn Press, 1977), p. 37
[6]North, Op. Cit., p. 6
[7]Ibid, p. 5
[8]He is referring to his article in The Geneva Review, January, 1986, “Tough Talk,” James B. Jordan, pp. 1, 2.
[9]Bahnsen, Op. Cit., p. xix
[10]North, Op. Cit., p. 6
[11]Bahnsen, Op. Cit., p. 228, 229
[12]Rushdoony, Institutes, pp. 824-836
[13]Bahnsen, Op. Cit., pp. xi-xxvii
[14]House and Ice, loc. cit., pp. 16, 24.
[15]Carl W. Bogue, “What does the Decalogue Summarize?” Covenanter Witness, (May 1987), p. 4 |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 10, 2023 11:21:31 GMT -5
Theonomy: A Reformed Baptist Assessment. Pt.4
Understanding the Supposed “Theocratic Kingdom”
I.) The Nature of the Theocratic Kingdom
Any treatment of the Theocratic kingdom confronts itself, first of all, with the task of defining the term, Theocracy. Its etymology is not in doubt. Etymologically, it is “God-rule.” One dictionary recognizing its native, civil context, properly defines it as “the rule of a state by God or a god …” Theologically, however, defining this word is much more difficult. Let me attempt to do so briefly by means of four assertions.
A) Yahweh is in a unique sense king of Israel.
There is nothing startling in God’s claim to be king. As Creator, He is Sovereign of all (Ps. 74:12f., 93:2, 103:19f.). But it is not merely this general dominion that the term, Theocracy, designates. It is specifically God’s kingship in Israel that is the proper starting point. This meaning of God’s kingship pervades the Old Testament and is a prominent characterization of His peculiar relation to Israel (Ps. 44:1-8 esp. v. 4, Ps. 68 esp. v. 24, and Isa. 41:21). Yahweh is even viewed as the commander of Israel’s army (Exod. 12:41, 17:8-16, Num. 10:35, 21:14, 23:21).
Yahweh’s assumption of kingship over Israel is related to the Exodus period in Israel’s history and, most specifically, to the covenant-making at Sinai (Exod. 19:5, 6; Ps. 10:16; Deut. 33:1-5). The reference in Deut. 33:1-5 is to the covenant meal with Israel’s leaders in Exod. 24:1-11. Oehler comments, “The Patriarchs called Him Lord and Shepherd, and it is not until He has formed for Himself a people by bringing Israel up out of Egypt that He is called, Exod. 15:18, “He who is King forever and ever.”[1]
The natural conclusion that one might draw from all of this is that God would occupy the place human kings occupied in other nations (Judges 8:23; 1 Sam. 8; 12:12; 2 Chr. 13:8). This explains the apparent defect in the Mosaic, civil order that no definite office of executive power is appointed at the Exodus period. Oehler comments, “The Mosaic Theocracy presents the peculiar phenomenon of being originally unprovided with a definite office for executing the power of the state.”[2]
The words of McPheeters form a fitting transition to the second assertion.
If the foregoing be a correct account of the idea expressed by the word “theocracy” and particularly if the foregoing be a correct account of the Old Testament representation of God’s relation to, and rule in and over Israel, it follows as a matter of course that the realization of such an idea was only possible within the sphere of what is known as special revelation. Indeed, special revelation of the Divine will, through Divinely chose organs, to Divinely appointed executive agents, is itself, the very essence of the idea of theocracy.”[3]
B) The direct promulgation by special revelation of a specific and detailed civil order is, then, characteristic of the Theocratic order. It is, of course, precisely this divinely revealed civil order that is often in mind when the term, Theocracy is used.
It is interesting in light of the formal assumption of kingship over Israel by Yahweh at Sinai that the giving of this civil law-order occupies a prominent place in the Sinaitic covenant. This becomes clear in all sorts of ways. Deut. 33:1-5 specifically mentions as part and parcel of Yahweh’s kingship “the law that Moses gave us, the possession of the assembly of Jacob.” The contextual reference to the to the law as the possession of “the assembly of Jacob” is a reference to Israel as a formal, civil (as well as religious) entity. Thus, the judicial law is included. The Exodus account confirms this. Immediately after the speaking of the Ten words by God Himself in Exod. 20, but before the ratification of the covenant by blood and the covenant meal in ch. 24 there intervenes the promulgation of the divine, civil law-order of the Theocratic kingdom in chapters 21-23. These chapters epitomize this order. Note Heb. 9:19: “When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood . . .” This statement must mean that, though this civil law-order is later expanded, Exodus chapters 21-23 are its epitome. Deut. 4:5-8 also refers to this order. In this passage it is clear that pre-eminently the civil order is in view. This is clear, first of all, from the fact that it is Israel as a nation-a civil order-contrasted with the other nations which is in view. Further, the terms, “statutes and judgments,” are distinguished in Deuteronomy from the covenant itself (The covenant in this context is essentially the Ten Commandments.) and clearly refer to the detailed civil order to be followed in the land (Deut. 4:12-14, 5:1-3 with 5:30-6:3). This civil order was one of the glories of Theocratic Israel. Isa. 33:22 confesses, “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us.”
C) A third characteristic of the Theocracy is the union of church and state in the Theocratic kingdom. Fairbairn marks this idea out as the key idea of the Theocracy:
First, then, in respect to the true idea of the theocracy–wherein stood its distinctive nature? It stood in the formal exhibition of God as King or Supreme Head of the commonwealth, so that all authority and law emanated from Him; and by necessary consequence, there were not two societies in the ordinary sense, civil and religious, but a fusion of the two into one body, or, as we might express it from a modern point of view, a merging together of Church and State.
. . . And this is simply the idea embodied in the Jewish theocracy; it is the fact of Jehovah condescending to occupy, in Israel, such a center of power and authority. He proclaimed Himself “King in Jeshurun.” Israel became the commonwealth with which He more peculiarly associated His presence and His glory. Not only the seat of His worship, but His throne also, was in Zion–both His sanctuary and His dominion.”[4]
Many aspects of the civil law of Israel corroborate this observation. There were civil penalties for religious defection to idolatry and the frequent involvement of the priests and Levites in civil matters (Num. 5:15f., 35; Deut. 19; 21:5). Ceremonial and national restrictions with strong religious overtones were placed upon entrance into the assembly of Israel (Deut. 23:1-8). The seat, center, and focus of both the civil power and the religious worship in Israel were identical. The ark of the covenant in the holy of holies was the throne of Jehovah (1 Sam. 4:4; 2 Sam. 6:2; 2 Kings 19:15; 1 Chr. 13:6; Ps. 80:1; 99:1; Isa. 37:16). This is not surprising. It was in the Tabernacle and later in the Temple that Yahweh dwelt with His people, Israel. If Yahweh was the king of Israel, it follows that the temple must have been His throne (Num. 10:35, 36; Ps. 11:3; Isa. 6:1f.; Ezek. 43:7; Jer. 3:16; 17:[5]). Even the identity of Israel as at one and the same time a “kingdom of priests,” Exod. 19:6, points to the identity of the civil and ecclesiastical establishments since it attributes both royal and priestly status to the “holy nation.”[6]
All this is not to say that there is not an element of separation between the civil and ecclesiastical establishments in Israel. We must not forget the strict separation of the royal and priestly offices. The king and the priest were never to be the same in the Theocratic kingdom (1 Sam. 13:8-14). This points to the ultimate inadequacy of the Old Testament institutions to fulfill the Theocratic ideal. It leaves the uniting point of the Theocratic kingdom even in its fullest Old Testament development in the person of Yahweh. Only in the new age would such inadequacy and imperfection be removed. Of the one who perfectly united the divine and Davidic kingships, it is written: “Behold, a man whose name is Branch for He will build the Temple of the LORD. Yes, it is He who will build the Temple of the LORD, and He who will bear the honor and sit and rule on His throne. Thus, He will be a priest on His throne and the counsel of peace will between the two offices.” (Zech. 6:12, 13)
D) The fourth and concluding perspective in our definition of Theocracy is the Davidic fulfillment and mediation of the Theocratic kingdom.
Though it might have seemed from what we have said previously that a human king in Israel would be a contradiction of the Theocratic ideal, the Old Testament plainly reveals that the divine kingship is vested through the Davidic covenant in the Davidic kings. David’s son and heir is adopted by Yahweh as His son and heir (2 Sam. 7:14; 1 Chr. 17:14; Ps. 89:26-29; 2:2-7).
This point might be vastly illustrated. I can only point you to the plainest evidence. Deut. 17:14-20 contemplates without condemnation the possibility that a human king would be appointed to implement the civil order revealed by Yahweh, King of Israel. The Chronicler has for one of his themes the idea that Yahweh’s kingship is now exercised through the Davidic dynasty. 1 Chr. 17:14 lays the foundation for the development of this theme in its record of the Davidic covenant itself. Through Nathan Yahweh says of David’s son, “But I will settle him in My house and My kingdom forever and his throne shall be established forever.” 1 Chr. 28:5 records the second inauguration of Solomon as king. “Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king . . .” 2 Chr. 13:8 records Abijah’s speech to Jehoram and all Israel. While Abijah’s historical account may be slanted, the theology of v. 8 is unimpeachable. “So now you intend to resist the kingdom of the Lord through (in the hands of) the sons of David.”
One point must be carefully noted in conclusion. By the Davidic Covenant the Theocratic Kingdom was united to the line of David and the city of Jerusalem (Ps. 78:67-72). The Theocracy was concentrated into God’s choice of David and Zion. It is for their sakes that Judah is spared time and again (1 Kings 11:11-13, 32, 34, 36; 14:21; 15:4; 2 Kings 8:19; 19:34; 20:6). It is in David and Zion that God’s unique kingship over Israel is exercised, that God’s specially revealed civil order is maintained and that the union of the civil and ecclesiastical (the royal and the priestly) institutions are epitomized.
There are certainly aspects of this attempt at a biblical definition of the Theocratic Kingdom which are amenable to Theonomic thought. The promulgation of a specific and detailed, civil law and the union of the ecclesiastical and civil spheres are to be noted in particular. Yet already questions are raised about the relevance of all this for Christians today by features of this definition. First, the idea of the Theocracy is limited to the unique reign of Yahweh over the nation Israel. May the law-order given to them in consequence of this unique, redemptive-historical relationship be extended to all nations and all time? Second, the Theocratic Kingdom is fulfilled and is made concrete through the Davidic Covenant in the reign of David and His sons in Jerusalem. With no divinely authorized son of David reigning on earth and with the earthly Jerusalem long ago destroyed, what is the relevance of such a Theocratic Kingdom for ourselves? This question brings us to a second, major issue with regard to the Theocratic Kingdom.
II.) The Disruption of the Theocratic Kingdom
The data so far presented permits the following definition of the Theocracy. The Theocracy is the nation of Israel as constituted by the institutions and blessings of the Sinaitic and Davidic covenants made with them by Yahweh, their king. The destruction of the Theocracy implies, therefore, nothing less than the destruction of the nation of Israel. It implies the removal of the peculiar institutions and blessings granted to Israel under the Sinaitic covenant and the Davidic covenant. The land, the laws, the temple, the Davidic dynasty, Zion, all are removed in the destruction of the Theocracy.
The disruption of the Theocratic kingdom is a phenomenon which, of course, cries out for an explanation. That explanation is written large across the face of the Old Testament. The blessings of the Sinaitic and Davidic covenants are removed, because the conditions of those covenants have been violated.
Deuteronomy‑-wise in the experience of Kadesh Barnea‑-forecasts the eventual breaking of the Sinaitic covenant by Israel, Deut. 29:25 records the answer to the question, “Why has the LORD done thus to this land?” (v. 24) It is, “Because they forsook the covenant . . .” Therefore “the LORD uprooted them from their land.” Deut. 31:14-22 contains Yahweh’s prophecy that Israel “will forsake me and break My covenant,” “spurn Me and break My covenant,” and they will be “consumed.” (v. 16, 17, 20) The accuracy of this forecast is vindicated in Jeremiah who uses the imagery of divorce (3:1-8, 31:31, 32) and rejected silver (6:27-30) to teach the formal renunciation of Judah in the Exile
The relevant Old Testament literature also records the violation of the Davidic covenant and lays the demise of Judah squarely at the feet of the house of David. Jeremiah specifically denounces the abuses of the Davidic king. The striking thing about these denunciations is the way in which the conduct of the king determines the future of Judah. Jer. 21:11, 12 urges the king to further civil righteousness in order to avoid the wrath of God upon the nation. Jer. 22:1-5 makes the execution of civil justice and the protection of the poor from oppression by the king the determining factor in whether Judah will experience the blessing or the curse. 2 Kings 23:26, 27 relates the ultimate destruction of the city and the temple immediately to the abuses of Mannasseh, the king. The account of the last four Davidic kings reverberates with the reversal of the Davidic blessings. Each king does evil in the sight of Yahweh (2 Kings 23:31, 32, 36, 37; 24:9, 24:19). The temple is plundered twice before its ultimate destruction (2 Chr. 36:7, 10, 18). At least three deportations depopulate the land and the city of Jerusalem (2 Kings 24:10-16, 25:11, 12, Dan. 1:1-7). Finally and climactically, the city and the temple are leveled and the last king of the four hundred year Davidic dynasty is led blind and childless to Babylon.
What must be clearly emphasized in all of this is that the disruption of the Theocratic kingdom was the preceptive will of God. It was no longer God’s revealed will for the people of God to give their political allegiance to a the theocratic, civil order. One of the most striking illustrations of this epochal alteration in the preceptive will of God for the civil conduct of His people is found in Jeremiah’s unprecedented call to fall away or apostatize to the king of Babylon (Jer. 21:8-10; 37:13-15; 38:1-28). This call to fall away is followed up with the advice of Jer. 29:1-7 where the Jews are told to pray for and seek the welfare of the city where they are exiled.
The very theme of the book of Daniel is to emphasize the perspectives which must guide the people of God in this new political situation. One might almost think of Daniel 2:37 as stating one of its main thrusts. It is intended to teach the legitimacy of Nebuchadnezzar’s rule. The terms, kingdom, power, strength, and glory, themselves imply the idea that not mere power, but actual authority has been divinely granted to Nebuchadnezzar.[7] The frequent repetition of this theme in Daniel 4:36, 37, 5:18, 19 also implies this. The parallel use of this terminology in Dan. 7:14, 22, 27 of the kingdom of God also suggests this point. Also relevant is the allusion in Dan. 2:37 to Ps. 8:6-8 and through it to Gen. 1:26, 27 noticed by several of the commentators.[8] This ties Nebuchadnezzar’s rule to the image of God and thereby establishes its validity.
The authority of Gentile kingdoms lasts longer than the initial 70 year period of exile. The restoration after this exile is largely symbolic and does not restore the independence of Judah. The authority given originally to Nebuchadnezzar is passed on to the Gentile kingdom which rule over the Israel of God till the second advent of Christ. This is suggested by the imagery of Daniel 2 and 7. The four Gentile kingdoms (and the number four may have a symbolic significance beyond its admittedly literal significance) are seen as one entity. One awesome symbol of civil authority in the hands of man represents them all. The symbolism of Daniel 2 and 7 reveals, however, that the authority of these Gentile kingdoms is only provisional. Its termination comes when God restores the kingdom to the Son of Man and the saints of the Most High (Dan. 2:44; 7:13, 14, 22, 27). This is a prophecy of nothing less than the restoration of the Theocratic kingdom.
In the meantime the Apostle Paul states what is the preceptive will of God for His people. In Rom. 13:1 he says, “Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.” The rich redemptive-historical backdrop of this statement is not often appreciated. For it was of the Roman Empire, the fourth and iron kingdom of Dan. 2, of which Paul was originally speaking. The four Gentile kingdoms of Dan. 2 include ultimately all non-Theocratic civil authority ruling over the people of God till the end of the age and the dawning of the Theocratic kingdom. To that authority Paul requires that Christians give submission.
III.) The Restoration of the Theocratic Kingdom
It is the timing and character of the eschatological restoration of the Theocratic Kingdom which must here be addressed. Among evangelical and conservative interpreters of Daniel a sharp cleavage exists on the timing of the coming of the kingdom prophesied in Daniel 2 and 7. In general it is fair to say that Dispensational, Pre-millennial commentators hold to a future restoration associated with the second advent of Christ. Anti-chiliasts and some Pre-millennialists have held that the kingdom of God promised in ch. 2 and 7 came in the events associated with Christ’s first advent.[9] A growing number of evangelical scholars are committed to a synthesis of these views at least insofar as their general perspective regarding the coming of the kingdom.[10] These scholars recognize a tension in the New Testament regarding the coming of the kingdom: an “already” and a “not yet” in the coming of the kingdom. They believe the kingdom prophesied in the Old Testament unfolds itself in two successive stages.
It is in Matthew–the “Jewish” gospel–the gospel of the son of David, in which the term, kingdom, occurs 55 times and the term, king, occurs a further 23 times, that this subject receives its clearest treatment. It is, further, precisely from Matthew that one would expect the clearest teaching on the restoration of the Theocratic kingdom.
It is in Matthew 13 and its seven, great parables of the kingdom that the issue of the coming of the kingdom is most pointedly addressed. Each of these seven parables assumes in one way or another that the coming of the kingdom takes place in two stages. The parable of the tares is, however, most pointed in this regard (Matt. 13:24-30, 37-43). The Kingdom of God comes in two stages. It will come as the eschatological harvest, but it must for that very reason come first as seed-time. Extraordinary as the thought must have seemed to the Jewish mind, until the coming of the eschatological harvest, good and evil men will co-exist in the world in the time of the Kingdom. Astonishingly, the coming of the Kingdom does not mean the immediate destruction of the wicked. The Messiah comes first as sower then as harvester. It is not his will that the wicked be immediately destroyed.
Ridderbos says,
The issue between the servants and the landlord is not the question who is to execute the separation, nor what kind of separation it is to be, but when it will happen. Though the servants desire to carry out an immediate separation, the landlord determines that it shall be postponed till the day of the harvest, for–thus he tells his servants–you might pull out the wheat in gathering the tares….
….Since the kingdom comes like the seed, and since the Son of Man is first the sower (vs. 37) before being the reaper (vs. 41) the last judgment is postponed. The delay is implied in this difference. Whoever sows cannot immediately reap. The postponement of the judgment is determined by the modality of the kingdom of God that has already come with Christ.[11]
Ladd remarks,
The meaning of the parable is clear when interpreted in terms of the mystery of the Kingdom: its present but secret working in the world. The Kingdom has come into history but in such a way that society is not disrupted. The sons of the Kingdom have received God’s reign and entered into its blessings. Yet they must continue to live in this age, intermingled with the wicked in a mixed society. Only at the eschatological coming of the Kingdom will the separation take place. Here is indeed the revelation of a new truth: that the Kingdom of God can actually come into the world, creating sons who enjoy its blessings without effecting the eschatological judgment.[12]
Applying this framework to the interpretation of Daniel and the restoration of the Theocratic kingdom, one obtains the result that a tension exists between the “already” and “not yet” aspects of the restoration of the Theocratic kingdom.
It is possible to construct an impressive argument for the present restoration of the Theocratic kingdom. The motifs of the Davidic covenant find affirmation in many different ways in the NT. David’s son has now been exalted and now exercises all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18-20; Eph. 1:20-22; Acts 2:34-36; Rom. 1:3, 4). He reigns in Jerusalem (Gal. 4:26; Heb. 12:22-24). There he occupies David’s throne (Acts 2:30, 31). There is the full unification of the throne of God and of David. He occupies the throne of God himself (Rev. 3:21, 5:1-13) in the temple of God (Heb. 8:1-6).[13] Yet all of this finds its focal point in heaven (Phil. 3:20; Gal. 4:26; Heb. 12:22f.). The NT insists that “we do not yet see all things subjected to him.” (Heb. 2:8f.; 1 Cor. 15:20-28). Premillennialists have been right to insist upon an earthly reign. The meek will inherit and reign upon the earth. (Matt. 5:5, Rev. 5:9, 10) The restoration of the Theocratic kingdom means security under the Davidic king for the people of God (Jer. 23: 5, 6; 33:14-18; Ezek. 34:20-25; 37:24-28). This is by no means the lot of the people of God in the present, evil age (2 Tim. 3:12, Acts 14:22).
Thus it is that we may speak of the heavenly and spiritual inauguration of the Theocratic kingdom. Yet we must never forget that there is an external, earthly manifestation of this kingdom which is crucial to it and is yet to come. This the older anti-Chiliast writers tended to miss or neglect.[14]
Now we come to the crucial, practical upshot of all this. When one is speaking of civil authority, one is speaking of a very earthly and external issue. It is, then the perspective of the “not yet” that is regulative in relation to the subject of civil life. As to earthly, civil authority the Theocratic kingdom is not yet. The eschatological re-gathering of (new) Israel awaits (Mt. 8:11, 12; 24:29-31; Lk. 13:29). The Gentile kingdoms may yet require our submission, because the “times of the Gentiles” continue till the end of the age, a reference to the period of the supremacy of the Gentile powers of Daniel (Luke 21:24).[15] The new Jerusalem in its earthly manifestation is not yet (Rev. 21:1-7). Jesus, Paul, and Peter command submission to Daniel’s fourth kingdom (Matt. 22:15f.; Rom. 13:1f.; 1 Peter 2:13f.). Jesus refuses the offer of civil authority in the days of his flesh (Luke 12:13, 14; Jn. 6:15).
The conclusion must be that in its political and civil dimensions the Theocratic kingdom is not yet on earth. The Church finds itself in a continuation of the “times of the Gentiles” and for this reason the Christian’s duty to the Gentile kingdoms is similar to that of post-Exilic Israel.
IV.) Practical Implications:
The implications of this overview of the destruction and restoration of the Theocratic Kingdom for issues relating to the Christian Reconstruction movement are manifold.
A) The commonality of post-Exilic Israel and the Church in terms of their Relation to Civil Authority.
The data brought forward in this study supports the conclusion that substantial unity and continuity exists between post-Exilic Israel and the Church in the matter of their relation to the Gentile kingdoms. The church as the New Israel inherits Israel’s relation to Gentile authorities and feels their power both in its human and bestial dimensions. C. F. Keil sees the matter clearly, “Accordingly the exile forms a great turning-point in the development of the kingdom of God which He had founded in Israel. With that event the form of the theocracy established at Sinai comes to an end, and then begins the period of the transition to a new form, which was to be established by Christ . . . “[16]
The recognition of the development of a new continuity between Israel and the Church at this point in redemptive history must not disguise the remaining discontinuity. There was a typical and partial restoration of the Theocracy under the Medo-Persian Empire. While Judah was no longer a kingdom, it was a province of the Persian empire and, thus, a civil entity. Within these limitations the Theocratic civil order continued to be enforced with civil penalties and the union of the church and state remained. The NT makes clear that the Church is not in continuity with this partially restored Theocracy (Matt. 21:33-46; Acts 7:1-53 with 6:8-15). It dies under divine judgment shortly after the Church’s establishment.
B) The Non-Theocratic Character of Civil Authority till the Return of Christ.
The first conclusion reminds us that with the expiration of the partially restored Theocratic order all civil authority ceased to be Theocratic in the sense in which we have defined that word in this here. God is no longer the unique king of any civil entity. No nation is now mandated to adhere to a divinely revealed civil order. While the moral principles enshrined in the laws of the Old Covenant remain authoritative, no nation is bound to the detailed, civil order of Old Testament Israel. Add to all of this the destruction of the Temple as the earthly throne of Yahweh and one must also conclude that no longer are church and state a united entity. The redeemed community no longer has a civil structure. Thus, the divine establishment of the Gentile civil authorities means that the separation of the civil and ecclesiastical institutions in human society is now God’s preceptive will. The alteration of this order will be signaled only by the return of Christ.
C) The Divine Establishment of the Gentile, Civil Authorities.
The assertion that no civil authority is now Theocratic definitely does not mean, biblically, that civil authority now stands in no relation or only a negative relation to God. The biblical data clearly establishes the fact that the present, Gentile civil authorities are divinely constituted. It was clear that this fact implies the idea that Gentile authorities are responsible to God and owe Him obedience as civil authorities. More stress is placed in the literature, however, on the duty of the people of God to subject themselves to the government of these rulers. To resist Nebuchadnezzar was to resist God.
The Biblical mandate to render obedience to the Gentile kings sheds light on the extent and character of the duty owed to civil authorities. Of course, no obedience was to be rendered to demands that violated the explicit demands of God. On the other hand, service and obedience was to be rendered to uncovenanted, autocratic, proud, idolatrous, abusive, and often bestial rulers. No fact could speak more eloquently of the truth that our subjection to civil authority is not conditioned on (our estimate of) the way it is being exercised. Bestial demands and behavior may call for disobedience or flight, but they never provide the grounds for violent resistance or rebellion. If Nebuchadnezzar’s self-deifying idolatry and Ahasuerus’ tyranny did not give the right of rebellion, then it is hard to imagine any conditions under which the abuse of civil power would warrant rebellion against “the powers that be.”
Worth mentioning here is the fact that examples of rebellions led by Jews against foreign kings during the time of the Theocracy are not relevant to the issue now being addressed. Shamgar, Samson, and the other saviors sent to deliver Israel from foreign domination lived before the divine transfer of civil authority to the Gentile kings and before the divine destruction of the Theocracy. There is a qualitative redemptive-historical difference between Eglon and Nebuchadnezzar.
D) The Curse-Character of Life under the Gentile kingdoms.
The authority of the Gentile kingdoms originated in covenantal curses and life under them continues and will continue to be a curse to the people of God. The clear prophetic outlook of the word of God is that the bestial character of these kingdoms will continue to characterize them and will finally completely dominate the eschatological manifestation of Gentile authority. This is not to be read as permission to ignore or be indifferent to civil righteousness insofar as it is within our ability to enhance it. Such a conclusion would fly in the face of the totalitarian claims of God and His word. This conclusion does mean, however, that civil authority is not to be made the object of mis-directed hope or consuming attention by the people of God. The mark of the perversion of the Biblical perspective is the re-focusing of hope upon social change. This error pervades modern theologies of social change. The true hope of the people of God is the re-establishment of the Theocratic kingdom. This, as the Scripture declares, will be the achievement not of civil reformation but of cataclysmic and supernatural divine intervention. The application of this observation to Theonomic Postmillenialism is obvious. It must be expanded when we come to deal with the eschatological expectations of Christian reconstruction.
E) The Central Importance of the Church for the Work of the Kingdom.
The entire theological perspective enumerated in this study warrants the conclusion that the energies and responsibilities of the Kingdom center on the Church in this age. The Theocratic Kingdom is present only in the redemptive task of the church not in the conservative task of the state. Therefore, labor for the Kingdom, must not place an equal importance on ecclesiastical and civil matters. The dominion mandate must not be set alongside the Great Commission as its equal nor may it be seen as its real content. The Church (and its task) is the exclusive focus of kingdom endeavor in this age. The theocratic kingdom is now present not in visible or political form, but in spiritual and ecclesiastical form.
F) This study of the Theocratic Kingdom leads us to expect that the judicial laws which were part and parcel of the Theocratic Kingdom would receive a distinctive application in the New Testament.
Specifically, this treatment would lead us to expect that they would be applied (1) to the eschatological restoration of the Theocratic Kingdom in the age to come and (2) to the ecclesiastical manifestation of the Theocratic Kingdom in this age. As a matter of fact further examination of the New Testament in the next part of this study will confirm this hypothesis.
Implicit in this application of the judicial laws is a reality that must be stated explicitly. The restoration of the Theocratic Kingdom at the end of the age is not the restoration of the same, old Theocratic Kingdom. Rather, the kingdom is restored in a glorified and transfigured form. The old kingdom sustained a typical relation to the glorious kingdom to come. Thus, there should be no expectation that in the coming kingdom the judicial laws of Israel would receive an exact and literal application. Thus, it is even more clear that no such literal and wooden use of the judicial law is appropriate in the present, ecclesiastical manifestation of the kingdom. How much less is such an application appropriate to the uncovenanted, Gentile kingdoms.
[1]ibid.
[2]Loc. cit.
[3]W. M. McPheeters, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. J. Orr, V. Wilmington, AP&A, n. d., p. 2965.
[4]Patrick Fairbairn, The Typology of Scripture, II, Evangelical Press, 1975, pp. 418, 419.
[5]Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, “Theocracy”, p. 617
[6]Brown, Driver, Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, attributes the meaning, priest-king, to MAMLEKAH COHENIM here. The LXX translates “hierateuma“, royal priest-hood, and this rendering is adopted in the N. T., 1 Pet. 2:9. Others references to this phrase in the N. T. further substantiate this translation (Rev. 1:6, 5:10).
[7]Cf. BDB in loc.
[8]Young, op. cit., p. 73. Cf. also
Joyce Baldwin, Daniel, Inter-varsity Press, 1978, p. 93.
[9]Wood, op. cit., p. 72f.
[10]Fairbairn, op. cit., pp. 440f.
[11]Ridderbos, op. cit., p. 137
[12]Ladd, op. cit., p. 97
[13]Cf. G. E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, Herman Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom, Anthony Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, Geerhardus Vos, Pauline Eschatology.
[14]Fairbairn, op. cit., p. 441.
[15]Exegetical facts which encourage this identification are the allusions to Daniel in the surrounding context of this phrase, 21:20 and 27, and the linguistic parallels between the use of kairoi here and its frequent use in Daniel with reference to the Gentile kingdoms (Dan. 2:21; 7:25; 9:26, 27).
[16]Murray, op. cit., pp. 253, 25
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 10, 2023 11:22:31 GMT -5
The Historical Background of Theonomic Ethics
Two major questions need to be asked here. They are …
Is the Theonomic view of the Mosaic “Judicial Law” consistent with the Reformed tradition?
Is the Theonomic viewpoint the legitimate offspring of Reformed paedobaptism?
1.) Is the Theonomic view of the Mosaic “Judicial Law” consistent with the Reformed tradition?
A.) The Reformed Tradition
This is a pressing question for Theonomists. On the one hand, in asserting “the abiding validity of the law in exhaustive detail” they appear to teach the binding obligation of the “judicial law” of Moses on society today.[1] On the other hand, the divines of the Westminster Assembly and Calvin, their mentor, clearly teach the “expiration” of the judicial law of Moses and deny that it is as such binding on nations today. The critical statement in the Westminster Confession of Faith is found in 19:4. Having clearly distinguished the moral, ceremonial, and judicial law, the Confession states, “To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.”[2] Calvin elaborates on this very point in his Institutes. His statements are so similar to that of the Confession that it is probable that here as in so many other places he had a formative impact on the Confession.
I will briefly remark, however, by the way, what laws it may piously use before God, and be rightly governed by among men. And even this I would have preferred passing over in silence, if I did not know that it is a point on which many persons run into dangerous errors. For some deny that a state is well constituted, which neglects the polity of Moses, and is governed by the common laws of the nations. the dangerous and seditious nature of this opinion I leave to the examination of others; it will be sufficient for me to have evinced it to be false and foolish. Now, it is necessary to observe that common distinction, which distributes all the laws of God promulgated by Moses into moral, ceremonial, and judicial; and these different kinds of laws are to be distinctly examined, that we may ascertain what belongs to us, and what does not ….
What I have said will be more clearly understood, if in all laws we properly consider these two things-the constitution of the law and its equity, on the reason of which the constitution itself is founded and rests. Equity, being natural, is the same to all mankind; and consequently all laws, on every subject ought to have the same equity for their end. Particular enactments and regulations being connected with circumstances, and partly dependent upon them, may be different in different cases without any impropriety, provided they are all equally directed to the same object of equity …. Whatever laws shall be framed according to that rule, directed to that object, and limited to that end, there is no reason why we should censure them, however, they may differ from the Jewish law or from each other. The law of God forbids theft. What punishment was enacted for thieves, among the Jews, may be seen in the book of Exodus. The most ancient laws of other nations punished theft by requiring a compensation of double the value. Subsequent laws made a distinction between open and secret theft. Some proceeded to banishment, some to flagellation, and some to the punishment of death. False witness was punished, among the Jews, with the same punishment as such testimony would have caused to be inflicted on the person against whom it was given; in some countries it was punished with infamy, in others with hanging, in others with crucifixion. All laws agree in punishing murder with death, though in several different forms. The punishment of adulterers in different countries have been attended with different degrees of severity. Yet we see how, amidst this diversity, they are all directed to the same end. For they all agree in denouncing punishment against those crimes which are condemned by the eternal law of God; such as murderers, thefts, adulteries, false testimonies, though there is not a uniformity in the mode of punishment; and, indeed, this is neither necessary, nor even expedient. . . . For the objection made by some, that it is an insult to the law of God given by Moses, when it is abrogated, and other laws preferred to it, is without any foundation; for neither are other laws preferred to it, when they are more approved, not on a simple comparison, but on account of the circumstances of time, place, and nation; nor do we abrogate that which was never given to us. For the Lord gave not that law by the hand of Moses to be promulgated among all nations, and to be universally binding; but after having taken the Jewish nation into his special charge, patronage, and protection, he was pleased to become, in peculiar manner, their legislator, and, as became a wise legislator, in all the laws which he gave them, he had a special regard to their peculiar circumstances.”[3]
If we are permitted to exegete the Westminster Confession by means of its admitted historical precedents, there need be no doubt that it is not a Theonomic document. How anyone in the sixteenth century could have stated more clearly theoretical disagreement with modern, Theonomic perspectives than Calvin has in the above quotation, it is impossible to imagine.[4] Research into the views of the Puritans themselves only serves to confirm this exegesis.[5]
B.) The Theonomist Response
Theonomists respond to this apparent conflict with the recognized standards of the Reformed tradition in various and contradictory ways.
Rushdoony’s response is perhaps the most honest and certainly the most straightforward. At the same time, however, it is also the most arrogant. He unflinchingly admits the contradiction and then accuses the Confession of “confusion” and “nonsense” and charges Calvin with uttering “heretical nonsense.”[6]
Other Theonomists have not been so eager to take on the Reformed tradition and have manifested more reverence for its perspectives. At the same time, they appear to have infringed historical honesty and literary clarity.
Bahnsen at the opposite extreme from Rushdoony in this matter argues that his thesis is in accord with the Confession. (As an Orthodox Presbyterian Church minister, we would expect Bahnsen either to do this or to exit the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, since that denomination holds the Westminster Confession of Faith.) What Bahnsen gains by this in proper veneration for the Reformed tradition, he loses in literary clarity. It is vexingly difficult to penetrate his thinking at this point. The confession asserts the “expiration” and “non-obligation” of the judicial laws with the qualification “further than the general equity thereof may require.” Bahnsen in his appendix dealing with the Westminster Confession seeks to view the distinction implicit here as a distinction between “the particular cultural expression of a judicial law” and the law itself in its cross-cultural general equity.[7]
Fowler’s assessment appears to be accurate.
What Dr. Bahnsen is actually saying is that the connotations of Israel’s ancient culture are no longer binding in today’s culture. But the case laws are illustrations to be applied equitably to today’s culture.
There is no doubt, therefore, that for Dr. Bahnsen, “general equity” does not refer to general moral principles underlying the case laws (i. e. the scope of the Ten Commandments). He is not saying that the case laws are no longer binding. Instead, “general equity” refers to the case laws, minus their cultural expressions, which are to be applied in an equitable manner cross-culturally in today’s society.
Dr. Bahnsen’s view of general equity stands in contrast to Reformed thought. This is one of the distinctives of Dr. Bahnsen’s view of the judicial law.(pp. 24, 25).[8]
As Fowler says, this view of the expiration of the judicial law does not satisfy the language of the Confession. To put it plainly, where the Confession speaks of the expiration of the judicial law as given to Israel as a body politic, Bahnsen speaks merely of the passing of its “particular cultural expression.”
James Jordan, writing in the Journal of Christian Reconstruction,[9] takes yet another approach to this problem. Jordan argues that the Westminster Confession is ambiguous with reference to the distinctive position of Theonomy.[10] Two salient features of Jordan’s article may be noted.
First, Jordan regards the very classification, “judicial law” as ambiguous.[11] Richard Flinn writing in the same issue of this journal seconds this opinion when he asserts (p. 55).
There is a perplexing problem of historical interpretation here, which in our day is causing some worthy men to engage in rather vain polemics. In the face of the political, economic, and social theory enunciated from the Scriptures by the Chalcedon Foundation, some in the neo-Puritan movement have argued that the doctrine of the continuity of the case law and its relevance for the church, state, family, and society was never part of Calvinistic and Puritan tradition. The dispute arises partly because of the ambiguity of the Puritans on this matter. There was some discussion amongst them on exactly how far the judicial law of Moses was to be carried over. The doctrine of the continuity of the case law was not articulated, to my knowledge, in a fully self-consistent, self-conscious form. But the case law did form the bedrock of the Puritans’ outlook on society, as we will demonstrate below from Rutherford. To declare that the doctrine of the continuing relevance of the case law was never part of Puritan theology is errant nonsense, but I readily grant that it had not been developed as consistently by them as it has been in our day by men like Rushdoony, Bahnsen, and others of the Chalcedon Foundation.[12]
This is a most significant point. For since the Westminster Confession presents its whole treatment of the law in terms of the moral, ceremonial, judicial distinction,[13] these comments amount to a concession of a distinct departure from the conceptual framework of the Confession.
The second salient feature of Jordan’s argument is to
stress the multi-faceted practical agreement between Theonomy and Calvin and Westminster as to the application of the Mosaic Judicial Law to society. Undoubtedly, such agreement exists. The Confession and Calvin did agree with Theonomy with reference to such issues as the relation of church and state. Calvin seems as well to have argued in favor of the death penalty for adultery later in his life.[14]
Such argumentation has, however, a fatal flaw. Practical agreement is not the same as theoretical agreement. Jordan virtually admits this when he concedes that Calvin did not “advocate the Mosaic judicials.”[15] Fowler is right, then, when he argues:
It is one thing to say that certain crimes or offenses against the law of God still deserve the death penalty meted out in the Old Testament, it is another thing to say that the Old Testament judicial law is binding in exhaustive detail! . . . In their incidental applications of particular laws, they may be alike therefore, but in the foundation of their respective systems, they are completely different! It is the foundation, not the incidentals that matters.[16]
C.) The Proper Conclusions
It is clear that major spokesmen for Theonomy are in profound disagreement on the subject of the relation of modern Theonomy to the historical Reformed touchstone of the Westminster Confession. Rushdoony admits the contradiction. Bahnsen attempts to eliminate but loses clarity of presentation in doing so. Jordan and Flinn find the Westminster Confession ambiguous in terms of the thought of modern Theonomy. This state of confusion among Theonomists in itself eloquently and poignantly suggests their deviation from the Reformed tradition.
Three things at least distinguish Theonomy from the Reformed tradition. First, Theonomists challenge as errant or ambiguous the moral/judicial distinction. Second, Theonomists proceed from a new (or novel) case law view of the judicial law. Third, Theonomists emphasize that the judicial law is abidingly valid, whereas the Confession sees it as “expired.”
2.) Is the Theonomic viewpoint the legitimate offspring of Reformed paedobaptism?
If Theonomy departs from the Reformed view of the “judicial law” the question is raised, From what in the Reformed tradition does it originate? Clearly, Theonomy has arisen from within the general confines of the Reformed tradition. What, then, is its historical antecedent in that theological tradition. Though in the nature of the case absolute proof may not be offered for his conviction, this writer is convinced that the logical starting-point for Theonomic thought in the Reformed tradition is to be found in paedobaptism and the logic by which it was and is supported in the Reformed tradition. In other words, Theonomy is simply the hermeneutic of paedobaptism consistently applied to the relation of Israel and the Church, the Old Testament and the New Testament. A number of considerations may be brought forward which commend this diagnosis of the Theonomic symptoms.
First, paedobaptist logic is committed to restricting the discontinuity between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant to a very superficial level and at the same time emphasizing the continuity between them to the point of practical identity. In order to facilitate the introduction of paedobaptism, baptism and circumcision are equated as closely as possible. This tendency to discount the discontinuity of and the diversity between baptism and circumcision is precisely the tendency of Theonomy in regard to the “judicial law” of Israel as it applies it to the modern state.
Second, even more cogently it may be argued that Reformed Paedobaptist thought treats Old Testament Israel as the paradigm for the New Testament Church and its baptism. Theocratic Israel is the model for the Church. Clearly, it seems to this writer, that is precisely the methodology of Theonomy in economic and political theology. Theonomy, if it is anything, is the erecting of the theocracy into a model for modern economics and politics. This is in fact precisely what Bahnsen says.
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. . . “All of the statutes” revealed by Moses for the covenant nation were a model to be emulated by the non-covenantal nations as well . . .[17]
Third, Baptists in the Reformed tradition have long argued that Reformed Paedobaptists are (happily) inconsistent in their general refusal to practice paedocommunion. Paedobaptists, they have argued, use the theocratic model for baptism, but not for communion. Theonomists, however, are among the leading advocates in the recent Reformed movement for paedocommunion. Rushdoony,[18] North,[19] Jordan,[20] though not Bahnsen,[21] vehemently argue for paedocommunion. In so doing they are simply being consistent in their paedobaptist logic.
The consistency, however, must be extended further. In bringing the Reformed tradition into strict conformity to the paedobaptist logic and the theocratic model, one must not only practice paedocommunion, but also adopt the judicial law as normative for the modern state. By doing this the “ambiguity” in the Westminster Confession is eliminated. For, it seems to this writer, the Confession and the Reformed tradition have been ambiguous in their adoption of the theocratic model at some points and not at others. To make the Reformed tradition “consistently Presbyterian,” the Theonomists eliminate those aspects of that tradition which have, in fact, been implicitly Baptist.
Fourth, in further confirmation of our suspicion-thesis that Theonomy is ultimately paedobaptist in its origins is the choice of the Tyler Theonomists as to their first volume in the Christianity and Civilization symposiums. Its title tells us all we need to know. It is entitled The Failure of the American Baptist Culture.[22]
Fifthly, one further similarity between Paedobaptismand Theonomy may be mentioned. Paedobaptist apologetes are unable to generate a unified perspective in defense of paedobaptism. Rather considerable diversity is the result of the attempt to provide a biblical justification of paedobaptism. Similarly, Theonomy as documented previously results in tremendous disagreement and debate in its practical application. We are convinced that the reason for this divisive tendency in both cases is the inherent inadequacies of the Theocratic model as a paradigm for either the Church or the State in the present age.
It is, then, the contention of this assessment that Theonomists have seen a very clear problem in the Reformed tradition, its ambiguity regarding theocratic Israel as a model for modern society, church, and state. They have, however, chosen the wrong direction in removing that ambiguity. Instead of attempting to make Reformed Theology consistently Paedobaptist, they should have argued for making it consistently Baptist. In refusing this alternative and opting for the theocratic model, we are convinced that they are on a theological road which can–consistently taken –lead by way of paedocommunion only to externalism and formalism. The frightening thing is that Theonomy has manifested a dogmatic commitment to following its premises to their logical conclusions–no matter how awful!
[1]Bahnsen, op. cit., p xxix
[2]Westminster Confession of Faith, (The Publications Committee of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland,1970), p. 81
[3]John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, (Vol II, ed. John Allen, (Philadelphia, Presbyterian Board of Christian Education, n.d), pp. 787, 788, 789-791 (4:20: 14, 16)
[4]Cf. the article by Robert Godfrey entitled “Calvin and Theonomy” (pp. 299f.) in Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, ed. by W. Robert Godfrey and William S. Barker, (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1990).
[5]Sinclair B. Ferguson in an excellent and detailed article in Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, ed. by W. Robert Godfrey and William S. Barker, (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1990) entitled, “An Assembly of Theonomists? The Teaching of the Westminster Divines on the Law of God” (pp. 315ff.) has shown with precise and exhaustive Puritan scholarship the contradiction between 19:4 of the Westminster Confession and modern Theonomy.
[6]Rushdoony, Institutes, pp. 9, 550, 551
[7]Bahnsen, op. cit., pp. 540, 541
[8] Paul B. Fowler, God’s Law Free From Legalism, pp. 24, 25 (Privately Distributed)
[9]James Jordan, The Journal of Christian Reconstruction, “Calvinism and the “Judicial Law of Moses” an Historical Survey,” (Winter, 1978-79; vol. v, no. 2) p. 175.
[10]Ibid., p. 43
[11]Ibid., p. 21
[12]Richard Flinn, The Journal of Christian Reconstruction, “Rutherford and Puritan Political Theory,” (Winter, 1978-79; vol. v, no. 2) p. 55
[13]Westminster Confession of Faith, p. 79f.
[14]Jordan, op. cit., pp. xvii, xviii
[15]Ibid, p. 25
[16]Fowler, op. cit., p. 46
[17]Bahnsen, op. cit., pp. xvii, xviii
[18]Rushdoony
[19]North
[20]North
[21]James Jordan, “Theses on Paedocommunion,” The Geneva Papers, special edition (from Geneva Divinity School, 1982)
[22]The Failure of the American Baptist Culture, ed. James B. Jordan (The Geneva Divinity School, 1982)
Sam Waldron
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 10, 2023 11:23:58 GMT -5
I. The Scriptural Claims of Theonomic Ethics
A. The Centrality of Matt. 5:17-20 in Bahnsen’s Defense of Theonomy
Paul B. Fowler has documented what should be obvious to any reader of Greg Bahnsen’s Theonomy in Christian Ethics. Bahnsen’s exegesis of Matt. 5:17-20 is the centerpiece of the entire book.[1] Bahnsen himself writes:
The locus classicus pertaining to Jesus and the law is Matthew 5:17-20; in this familiar section Jesus speaks openly of his relation to the law of the Older Testament, the status of that law, and what the response of His disciples should be to that law. The theonomy of true kingdom righteousness is the heart of His teaching here.[2]
Bahnsen, thus, devotes 48 pages of concentrated exegesis to the opening of this key text. Fowler notes that the entirety of Theonomy in Christian Ethics is organized around this key text and its exegesis.
Note the organization of Dr. Bahnsen’s book, Theonomy. Chapter 1 is the Introduction. Chapter 2 is his exegesis of Matthew 5:17-20, entitled: “The Abiding Validity of the Law in Exhaustive Detail.” In this chapter he concludes that in Matthew 5 verse 17 the validity of the Old Testament Law is confirmed, verse 18 confirms the validity of all the jots and tittles of the Old Testament Law, and verse 19 confirms the validity of meticulous observance by Kingdom citizens of the least details of the Old Testament Law. He captions his chapters 1 and 2 in the Table of Contents, “The Thesis.” Chapters 3 and 4 have the caption: “Misconceptions of the Thesis Eradicated.” Then Dr. Bahnsen proceeds to develop the rest of his book around his interpretation of Matthew 5:17-20.[3]
Fowler is certainly correct when he concludes: “Thus, if it could be shown that Dr. Bahnsen’s interpretation is incorrect, or even tenuous at crucial points, his thesis would be come suspect.”[4]
B. The Interpretation of Matt. 5:17-20 in Bahnsen’s Defense of Theonomy
Many inadequacies in Bahnsen’s exegsis of Matt. 5:17-20 have been discussed by various writers.[5] In the interests of brevity and simplicity the critique given here will organize itself around the single major flaw in that exegesis, his interpretation of the word, fulfill (ðëçñoù), in Matt. 5:17. Very simply put, Bahnsen asserts that the meaning of this word in the passage is to confirm or establish.[6] He, then, proceeds to argue that, since v. 18 is speaking of every jot and tittle of the law, Jesus in this passage asserts that he came to confirm, establish, or restore to full authority the law of God in exhaustive detail. This is the thesis that Bahnsen bravely undertakes to explain, vindicate, and defend in the rest of his work. Bahnsen concludes, “Jesus, the awaited Messiah, rectifies the fallen standard of the law; he confirms its exhaustive details and restores a proper conception of kingdom righteousness.”[7]
C. The Misconception of Matt. 5:17-20 in Bahnsen’s Defense of Theonomy
Under this heading seven inadequacies in Bahnsen’s interpretation of the key word, fulfill, in Matt. 5:17 will be identified. These four inadequacies will also provide a framework in which to suggest the proper understanding of the key word and the passage.
1. The Inadequacy of the Lexical Evidence
The first inadequacy in Bahnsen’s treatment of “fulfill” is the inadequacy of the lexical evidence for the meaning of confirm. Fowler points out, “It may be noted that Arndt and Gingrich, the major New Testament Greek lexicon which devotes over two full pages to ðëçñoù, “to fulfill,” does not even list “to confirm” (or “to establish,” to ratify”) as a possible nuance.” Fowler’s footnote reads as follows:
F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, University of Chicago Press, 1957, pp. 676-678. This lexicon actually gives several possible nuances of ðëçñoù in Mt. 5:17, one of which is: to bring to full expression=show it forth in its true meaning.” This is not the same as Dr. Bahnsen’s “to establish as valid.” Recent editions also include within parentheses Dalman’s view “to confirm,” but this view is deliberately not included as generally accepted as possible.[8]
Further corroborating the lexical inadequacy of Bahnsen’s interpretation is the consistent, terminological distinction between words meaning confirm and words meaning fulfill in the Bible. Fowler has investigated this and discovered that …
The main Hebrew and Greek terms for “to confirm” are ___ and `éóôçìé (and cognates). The main Hebrew and Greek terms for “to fulfill” are À__ and ðëçñoù. The Hebrew term for “to confirm” (___) is never rendered in the LXX by the Greek term for “to fulfill” (ðëçñoù). Nor is the Hebrew term for “to fulfill” (À__) ever rendered in the LXX by any of the cognate forms of the Greek term for “to confirm” (`éóôçìé). There is a legitimate distinction between “to confirm” and “to fulfill” in both Hebrew and Greek. Dr. Bahnsen’s attempt, therefore, to fuse the two meanings of “to confirm” and “to fulfill” is certainly to be questioned.[9]
2. The Inadequacy of the Interpretive Alternatives
A second inadequacy of Bahnsen’s exegesis is that the interpretive alternatives to his own position which he provides are partial. To be specific, while he lists five other possibilities for the meaning of “fulfill” (puts to an end, replaces, supplements, intends to actively obey, enforce), he does not even mention the most prominent contextual usage of the word,[10] the fulfillment of divine promises. Says Fowler:
… it is strange that Dr. Bahnsen does not even mention the most prominent use of ðëçñoù (“to fulfill”) in Matthew: of divine predictions and promises being fulfilled. As we will see below, it is this technical usage of Christ being the Messianic fulfillment of the Old Testament promises that holds one of the keys for interpreting ðëçñoù (“to fulfill”) correctly.[11]
This thought brings us to a third and crucial inadequacy of Bahnsen’s interpretation of this key word.
3. The Inadequacy of the Consideration of Context
It is rather shocking after reading Bahnsen’s lengthy treatment of the meaning of ðëçñoù (“to fulfill”) to open up a Greek concordance and examine the other usages of the word in the Gospel of Matthew. Bahnsen’s exegesis of “fulfill” manages to completely ignore the paramount consideration of the way this word is used in other places in the same book of the Bible. This neglect is all the more inexcusable because the word is used 15 other times in Matthew with great consistency.[12] It will be well to let these uses speak for themselves.
1:22‑-“Now all this took place that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled …”
2:15‑-“…that what was spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled…”
2:17‑-“Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled …”
2:23‑-“that what was spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled …”
3:15‑-“Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.”
4:14‑-“… to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet …”
8:17‑-“in order that what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled …”
12:17‑-“in order that what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, might be fulfilled …”
13:35‑-“so that what was spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled …”
13:48‑-“and when it was filled, they drew it up on the beach”
21:4‑-“Now this took place that what was spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled”
23:32‑-“Fill up then the measure of your fathers.”
26:54‑-“How then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen this way?”
26:56‑-“But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets may be fulfilled?”
27:9‑-“Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled …”
Twelve of these fifteen occurrences clearly use “fulfill” with reference to the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. In these the Scriptures are viewed as a prophetic word destined to find its fulfillment in the coming of the Messiah. In the three other passages, the overtones of eschatological fulfillment may also be discerned in different ways. Matt. 3:15 speaks of the baptism of Jesus as fulfilling all righteousness. However this is exactly to be understood, it certainly speaks of Messianic fulfillment and salvation. Matt. 13:48 uses the word in a kingdom parable. The filling of the net with fishes also has the connotation of eschatological fulfillment. Matt. 23:32 also alludes to eschatological fulfillment by way of the coming of Israel’s sin to full measure. This fulfilling of Israel’s sin is the backdrop of the predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem and the final end contained in the following two chapters, Matthew 24 and 25.
If, then, the paramount consideration of the contextual usage of “fulfill” is allowed to have any impact on the exegesis on Matt. 5:17, it forces us to recognize there the idea of eschatological fulfillment and redemptive-historical movement. It is this idea that is absent from Bahnsen’s understanding. It certainly fails to make any meaningful impact on his exegesis. Simply to confirm or establish the law is merely to reaffirm its original integrity (in exhaustive detail, as Bahnsen likes to say). There is no sense of eschatological fulfillment or redemptive-historical movement in this.
Bahnsen’s only reply to this massive array of contextual evidence is to appeal to the immediate context Matt. 5:17. He makes the point that in Matthew 5:19ff. Jesus is speaking of the commandments of the law being fulfilled and proceeds to expound some of the more important of these commandments and order men to obey them.[13] This point is well-taken. The immediate context of Matt. 5:17 certainly must be taken into account. It certainly indicates that included in the fulfillment of the law and the prophets is the exposition of their true meaning and application to Christ’s disciples. This element cannot be eliminated from the fulfillment of which v. 17 is speaking. Thus, when House and Ice speak of sweeping modifications of Old Testament law with reference to divorce, oaths, and the lex talionis and hold out the possibility that the law will be abrogated by the coming of Christ, they fail adequately to grapple with Bahnsen’s position or the context of Matt. 5:17.[14]
Yet it is equally wrong for Bahnsen to ignore the use of “fulfill” in Matthew and the redemptive-historical movement it introduces into Matt. 5:17. The entire Matthaean context of this text teaches that the law and the prophets are moving toward messianic fulfillment. Clearly, this does not mean the abrogation of its moral precepts and principles. Matthew 5 makes this plain. Yet it does mean, as Bahnsen himself admits, that the ceremonial precepts of that law are brought to their fulfillment and, thus, superseded by the work of Christ. This dimension of fulfillment is clearly in the background of Matt. 5:17.
There are, furthermore, contextual indications in Matthew 5 itself which point to the idea of eschatological fulfillment. The repeated use of the verb, “I came,” by the Lord Jesus in v. 17 puts His mission at the center of that verse. Fowler comments:
Jesus’ use of çëèov (“I came”) emphasizes His mission, and strongly suggests that Jesus viewed His task as actualizing in His life the will of God made known in the law and the prophets. He has come in order that God’s Word may be completely fulfilled, in order that the full measure appointed by God Himself may be reached in Him.[15]
The phrase, “until all is accomplished,” found in v. 18 also brings out this emphasis also. The verb used here is also used in Matt. 1:22 the first occurrence of ðëçñoù in Matthew. That text says, “Now all this took place that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled …” The words, took place, translate the same Greek verb ãévoìáé as the words, is accomplished, translate in Matt. 5:18. This association provides added weight to Fowler’s suggestion (in agreement with many other commentators) that there is parallelism of thought between verses 17 and 18. He illustrates that parallelism this way:
17- I have not come to destroy (the law or the prophets) but to fulfill.
18- One jot or one tittle (from the law) shall never pass away until all things come to pass
Thus understood the two verbs ãévoìáé and ðëçñoù are parallel in meaning in a way similar to Matt. 1:22. The implication is that the phrase, “until all is accomplished,” speaks of the fulfillment and completion of the redemptive-historical process recorded in the Old Testament Scriptures.
Another contextual indication of the idea of fulfillment is in the exposition of the law given by the Lord Jesus in this chapter. It is clearly misguided with House and Ice to see our Lord’s intention to be that of introducing “sweeping modifications of three important institutions of the Mosaic Law (i. e. divorce‑-5:32; oaths‑-5:34; talion‑-5:39) …”[16] There is no modification of these Old Testament institutions in this chapter, if its is rightly interpreted. In the case of oaths he must not be understood as outlawing all oaths because so to understand Him is to make Him condemn (among other things) the oaths taken by the Apostle Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 1:9; 2 Cor. 1:23). In the case of divorce and the lex talionis Jesus does not object to the Old Testament laws, but to their misapplication to personal ethics.
It is, therefore, wrong to speak of Jesus introducing sweeping modifications into the Old Testament law in Matthew 5. This does not mean, however, that Jesus here is merely confirming and reaffirming the Law. Rather, he must be seen as accentuating the personal requirements of the law and applying the law to the new redemptive-historical circumstances of His people. Fowler properly remarks:
Is Jesus then merely repeating the Old Testament Law? Is He simply confirming that the Old Testament theocracy needed to be reestablished? No, and this is the critical point. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus consistently frames the principles of His kingdom in terms of the new form of the Kingdom He has come to establish. For example, the law about murder in the Mosaic legislation was sufficient for the civil realm. But it was certainly not sufficient for the personal realm. …. The law about divorce was added by God to guard against an excessive divorce rate in Israel. In Jesus day, however, the Pharisees had turned its civil purpose around so that in their personal lives they could find a reason to get a divorce.
In conclusion, the Sermon on the Mount is introducing us to the principles of the Kingdom Christ came to establish. Christ is accenting the personal, not the civil realm. He is reapplying the moral law to the Kingdom He came to establish and is not concerned to confirm the continuing validity of the theocracy. Christ’s application of the jots and tittles of the law is both radical and practical. …. As Herman Ridderbos has observed, these formulations of Christ have “no other aim than the fulfillment of the law revealed by God to Israel.”[17]
4. The Inconsistency of the Further Explanation
Clearly, Bahnsen has raised all sorts of questions for himself by maintaining that Matthew 5:17 teaches the confirmation of the law of Moses in exhaustive detail. Specifically, he has raised very problematic questions about the subject of the ceremonial law. Bahnsen remarks at the outset of his chapter on the subject in Theonomy:
About this point the question may have arisen, what about the laws in the Older Testament dealing with sacrifices, the temple, etc.? According to the foregoing thesis, every jot and tittle of the Lord’s law is binding upon God’s people in all ages. Does this mean that New Testament Christians are required to observe the Older Testamental ritual?[18]
Bahnsen’s answer to this question often surprises the novice. Though he has stated with absolute-ness and unqualified emphasis, the abiding validity of the law in exhaustive detail throughout his book, yet at this point he responds ambiguously, “The answer to this question is yes and no.”[19] Bahnsen explains his ambiguity in the succeeding sentences:
Yes, Christians under the New Covenant are still responsible to offer blood atonement for their sins and tend to the obligations of the temple, etc.; however, we must be mindful of the fact that the way or manner in which Christians do these things under the new Covenant is not identical with the Older Testamental observation of the ritual and ceremony.[20]
This answer of Bahnsen to the abiding validity of the ceremonial law certainly permits the question, Has Bahnsen really avoided contradicting himself by it? I do not believe he has. In reality Bahnsen is caught on the horns of a dilemma which he cannot resolve. If he stresses the abiding validity of every jot and tittle of the law of Moses, then there really is no way to reconcile this with the language that he himself uses of the coming of the New Covenant. Listen to him:
The Levitical priesthood, representing the Mosaic system of ceremonial redemption, could not bring perfection and so was intended to be superseded (Heb. 7:11., 28). The people of God were subjected to a law or principle of ceremonial redemption with reference to the priesthood, says the author of Hebrews, but when Jesus instituted a change in the priesthood (for He was of the tribe of Judah, not Levi) the ceremonial principle was altered as well. This was inevitable because the ceremonial priests remained powerless to effect the perfect inward cleansing required. The former commandment with reference to ceremonial matters was set aside, then, in order that God’s people might have a better hope, for the ceremony was imperfect and kept men at a distance from God (Heb. 7:18f.). The commandment which was annulled was “a commandment with respect to the flesh” … This law made nothing perfect …[21]
One can scarcely believe that the repeated references to the imperfection, superseding, changing, alteration, setting aside, and annulling of the ceremonial law come from the same man who has argued that Jesus confirmed every jot and tittle of the law. Has not Bahnsen written, “The law is a transcript‑-a writing out of the details‑-of God’s moral perfection (Matt. 5:48; Psa. 19:7). As such, then, the law can no more be changed, abrogated, or improved upon than can God’s perfection …”?[22] Mr. Bahnsen will have a difficult time reconciling these two statements to the plain Christian.
But there is another horn to this dilemma. If Mr. Bahnsen is serious about allowing for the spirit and not the letter of the ceremonial law to count as its abiding validity, then he has raised serious questions about the subject of the judicial law. On what grounds does he place the judicial law on the side of the moral as literally valid, instead of on the side of the ceremonial law as figuratively or spiritually valid? Why may we not argue for a similar fulfillment of the judicial laws and penology of the Theocracy in the New Testament church and in the judgments of the eschaton? Fowler has well-asked:
Finally, if we are agreed that certain particulars of the ceremonial laws were altered due to the coming of Christ and His fulfillment of them, and if we are agreed that these altered particulars are included in the jots and tittles of the law, then why would not the same alteration be true with regard to the particulars of the judicial law of Israel? For the laws of the church-state of Israel were altered as a result of the coming of Christ and His setting up a new form of Israel as a church-body. Would not then the civil laws for Israel as a Theocracy have to be restated and altered to apply to the new form of Israel as the body of Christ?[23]
Clearly, if (in spite of Bahnsen’s interpretation) Matt. 5:17 allows for redemptive-historical fulfillment with regard to ceremonial law, then it may also somehow allow for redemptive-historical movement with reference to judicial law. These realities in themselves suggest that Bahnsen’s understanding of the passage is inadequate. They also indicate that Matt. 5:17 is wholly inadequate to bear the weight which he makes it bear in his system. If Matt. 5:17 allows for the annulling and setting aside of ceremonial law (to use Bahnsen’s terminology), then it may be consistent with the expiration of the judicial law. Thus, it cannot support the distinctive thesis of Theonomic Ethics.
II. The Biblical Rebuttal of Theonomic Ethics
A. The Framework of This Rebuttal
Here I am referring to the overview of the redemptive history of the Theocratic Kingdom provided before. We have seen two things which create the greatest presumption that the judicial law has expired. First, we have seen that the judicial law‑-the specific and detailed civil order specially revealed by God‑-was an essential part of the unique relation of God to the kingdom of Israel. Second, we have seen that the Theocratic kingdom perished under the curse of God and that it his preceptive will and divine ordination that the Gentile kingdoms should now hold civil power over the people of God. There is, therefore, no reason to think that laws which were part of a unique and peculiar order which no longer exists in the world today should bind nations today. This is, of course, the reasoning of the Westminster Confession itself, “To them also he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any now by virtue of that institution”.
B. The Elaboration of This Rebuttal
Dennis E. Johnson writing in Theonomy: A Reformed Critique entitles his chapter, “The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Mosaic Penal Sanctions.” He emphasizes that some of the most important teaching on the relevance of the judicial law for Christians is provided in this letter.
Only a few specific references to the Mosaic penal sanctions are found in the New Testament. Below I will argue that among the most significant of these are the passages in the Epistle to the Hebrews that compare and contrast the Mosaic penalties to the judgment awaiting those who repudiate the new covenant inaugurated by Christ. A brief survey of the other New Testament references to the penalties of the Law of Moses will, I believe, demonstrate how important the passages in Hebrews are.[24]
The primacy of the teaching of Hebrews will become clear in the following elaboration of the biblical rebuttal of Theonomic Ethics.
1. The Obsolescence of the Judicial Law
Hebrews is important because it teaches that the judicial law of Israel is obsolete and is, therefore, no longer obligatory upon Christians. This may be gleaned from Heb. 9:19 which speaks of the book of the covenant which contained the judicial law of Israel. Permit me to open up this passage by asking and answering two questions about the book of the covenant mentioned in this text.
What was the content of the book of the covenant? The book of the covenant was the epitome or summary of the judicial law of Israel. Notice the language, “when every commandment of the law had been spoken by Moses.” This is a reference to Exodus 24:1-3. In this passage Moses recounts to the people the laws which God gave him on Mount Sinai after the announcement of the Ten Commandments had been concluded. In Exodus 20:21 and 22 we are told that Moses approached the thick cloud and that God proceeded to speak to Him. The content of this divine revelation is found in Exodus 20:22-23:33. Even a cursory reading of these chapters will show that their focus or primary content is upon the judicial law of Israel‑-not upon the Ten commandments which were written separately and exclusively on the tables of stone.[25] While the book of the covenant may have included the Ten Commandments, and while it did contain (arguably) some ceremonial laws (Exod. 20:18-26), it is clearly viewed as the comprehensive summary or epitome of the judicial law. Exodus 24:3 uses comprehensive language, “all the words of the Lord and all the ordinances”. Heb. 9:19 picks up on this comprehensive language “when every commandment of the law had been spoken by Moses”.[26] Our second question brings us to the practical importance of this text.
What is the present status of the book of the covenant? It has passed away. What cannot be avoided in this passage is the expiration of the book of the covenant and with it the judicial law. The significant thing about this mention of the judicial law of Israel is that it comes in a context which equates it with the first or Old Covenant (Heb. 9:18). The same context has for its theme the thought that the Old Covenant is obsolete and ready to disappear because it was imposed only until a time of reformation (Heb. 8:7, 13; 9:10; 10:1). It is impossible to avoid the clear teaching of Heb. 9:19 that the book of the covenant, the summary of the judicial law of Israel, has expired. This teaching is, of course, completely antithetical to Theonomic Ethics.
2. The Relevance of the Judicial Law
There is at least an important element of truth in Dennis Johnson’s remark that, “Ultimately the New Testament must be our guide in determining how the various categories of commandments in the Law of Moses function as God’s authoritative Word to the post resurrection church.”[27] Though Theonomists may scruple at the word, ultimately, surely no one can deny that the way in which the New Testament itself utilizes the judicial law of Israel is of intense interest on this subject.
Since the book of the covenant as part of the first covenant is obsolete and has now passed away, it might be concluded that it is completely irrelevant for the Christian. This very Epistle to the Hebrews manifests the superficiality of this conclusion. In two significant passages it makes clear reference to the Mosaic penal sanctions (Heb. 2:1-3; 10:28-31). In both passages the penal sanctions of the judicial law are seen as pointing typically to the destruction of those who apostatize from salvation in Christ.
These passages, however, are consistent with the previously seen obsolescence of the judicial law. While as a civil code binding the present conduct of the people of God, it is obsolete, the judicial law also fulfills the shadow function of the Law (Heb. 10:1-3). Its penal sanctions are not intended as the norm of the now present Gentile kingdoms. Rather, they point to the judgments which shall accompany the restoration of the Theocratic Kingdom at Christ’s return.
As Dennis Johnson points out in the book referred to earlier, this use of the judicial sanctions is related to the other application of the judicial law in the New Testament. The judicial law is also cited in relation to the judgments which the spiritual kingdom of Christ in the church now executes to maintain the purity of the church. Corrective church discipline properly executed foreshadows the ultimate judgment of the apostate in the day of judgment (1 Cor. 5:1-13. Dennis Johnson remarks:
But it is noteworthy that Paul seals this discussion with a formula quoted from the Mosaic penal sanctions: “Expel the wicked man from among you” (v. 13; see Deut. 17:7, 12; 19:19; 21:21; 22:21, 24; 24:7). His wording follows that of the Septuagint so closely that his intent to appeal to this Old Testament formula is unmistakable. In the Deuteronomy contexts this formula, whenever it appears, refers to the execution of those committing deeds “worthy of death” …. Paul applies the same terminology to the new covenant community’s judging/purging act of excommunication….[28]
Dennis Johnson’s conclusion about the New Testament data is certainly justified.
The question whether the penal sanctions should also instruct the state as it is charged to administer justice to persons within and without God’s covenant is not explicitly addressed in the New Testament …. The New Testament’s minimal direction to governmental officials does not support the view that the Mosaic penalties should be enforced by noncovenantal governmental structure on a noncovenantal people.
The Theonomic use of the Mosaic judicial law, it must be concluded, must be rejected. It ignores the clear teaching of the New Testament as to the obsolescence of the judicial law. It obscures the proper relevance of the judicial law to the church, the visible and spiritual kingdom of Christ, in its attempt to apply it to non-Theocratic civil governments.
On the other hand, the traditional Reformed view is clearly a suitable framework within which to understand the New Testament references to the judicial law. Its assertion of the expiration of the judicial law with the passing of the Theocracy is vindicated by Heb. 9:19. Its continuing relevance for Christians by way of its general equity is illustrated by its use in the New Testament in reference to matters of church purity and eschatological judgment.
[1]Paul B. Fowler, God’s Law Free From Legalism, pp. 60f. This unpublished manuscript has been most helpful to me in this treatment of Matt. 5:17-20.
[2]Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics, p. 39.
[3]Fowler, loc. cit., pp. 60 and 61. Fowler goes on to give examples of how in chapters 9, 16, and 22 and in the concluding sentences of the book Bahnsen refers back to Matthew 5:17-20.
[4]Fowler, loc. cit., p. 62
[5]See beside Fowler House and Ice pp. 103ff. in Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse; R. Laird Harris in his review article on Theonomy in Christian Ethics in the Covenant Seminary Review 5, (Spring 1979): pp.1-15.; Bruce K Waltke in “Theonomy in Relation to Dispensational and Covenant Theologies” an article in Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, pp. 80ff.
[6]Bahnsen, loc. cit., pp. 67-70.
[7]Bahnsen, loc. cit., p. 86.
[8]Fowler, loc. cit., p. 64
[9]Fowler, loc. cit., p. 69.
[10]Bahnsen, loc. cit., pp. 52, 53.
[11]Fowler, loc. cit., pp. 66, 67.
[12]“Fulfill” occurs a 16th time in Matt. 27:35 if the textual variant found in the Textus Receptus is followed. The usage there is consistent with the others found in Matthew, “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet.”
[13]On pp. 60 and 61 of Theonomy … Bahnsen alludes to the idea of fulfillment of prophecy saying, “… the context of Matthew 5:17 indicates that ðëçñoù refers to Jesus’ work as a teacher. There are no allusions to predictions of the Older Testament …”
[14]House and Ice, loc. cit., pp. 104-112. The reference to the sweeping modifications of the law in the Sermon on the Mount is the language of Randy Gleason who House and Ice are quoting approvingly. House and Ice also suggest on p. 112 that Jesus is intent on showing his disciples their need of His righteousness in the Matt. 5:21-28. The doctrine of forensic righteousness, while biblical, is foreign to the import of Matthew 5 which is speaking of the hearts and practical lives of believers.
[15]Fowler, loc. cit., pp. 73, 74.
[16]House and Ice, loc. cit., p. 105.
[17]Fowler, loc. cit., pp. 91 and 92.
[18] Bahnsen, loc. cit., p. 207.
[19]ibid.
[20]ibid.
[21]Bahnsen, loc. cit., p. 208.
[22]Greg Bahnsen, The Presbyterian Journal, “The Authority of God’s Law,” vol. 37, no. 32, p. 11.
[23]Fowler, loc. cit., p. 89.
[24]Dennis E. Johnson writing in Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, ed. by W. S. Barker and R. W. Godfrey, (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1990), “The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Mosaic Penal Sanctions,” pp. 177, 178.
[25]This is admitted by Theonomists. Cf. James Jordan’s The Law of the Covenant: An Exposition of Exodus 21-23 (Institute for Christian Economics, Tyler, 1984).
[26]This means that the we must distinguish the perspective of Hebrews where the law is equated with the book of the covenant and the perspective of Romans where the law is primarily the Ten Commandments. Equate the law with the book of the covenant and it is proper to speak of its passing away as Hebrews does. Equate the law with the Ten commandments and the emphasis must be on its abiding validity as it is in Romans. The law in general and as an economy has passed away. The law specifically as the Ten commandments cannot pass away. In this way Heb. 9:19 may be safeguarded from Antinomian misuse. See below on a Reformed hermeneutic of the Mosaic Law.
[27]Dennis E. Johnson, loc. cit., p. 191,
[28]ibid., p. 181.
Sam Waldron
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 10, 2023 11:25:21 GMT -5
I.) A Reformed Defense of Religious Liberty
1.) The Theonomic view of the Separation of Church and State Refuted
It is a misconception to think that Theonomists reject the separation of the church and state. They do, however, to say the least, define the separation of church and state differently than it is normally defined in our day either by secularists or Christians. In fairness to Bahnsen his view of the separation of church and state is not novel, but may claim to be typical of Calvin, the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the earlier Reformed tradition. Bahnsen argues
Therefore, an investigation of the Older and New Testaments reveals that they both separate the functions of the state from those of the church; however, they both maintain also the authority of God over church as well as state. In the era of the New Testament this means that the sword of the state is under moral responsibility to the law of God without being confused with the sword of the church. The state has recourse to capital punishment as a penal sanction, but the church’s severest punishment is that of excommunication. . . The state does not operate in the name of the Redeemer or as an organized expression of the redeemed community. However, this does not mean that the state is not morally responsible to God and His justice. . . The point, then, is that church and state can be separated with respect to function, instrument, and scope and yet both be responsible to God. . . the law does not grant the state to enforce matters of conscience (thus granting “freedom of religion”), but it does have the obligation to prohibit and restrain public unrighteousness (thus punishing crimes from rape to public blasphemy). The state is not an agent of evangelism and does not use its force to that end; it is an agent of God, avenging His wrath against social violations of God’s law. If one’s outward behavior is within the bounds of the law he has nothing to fear from the civil magistrate-even if one is an idolater, murderer, or whatever in his heart.”[1]
Let there be no misunderstanding of Bahnsen’s position. In his ideal state “public” blasphemy, idolatry, sabbath-breaking, apostasy, witchcraft, sorcery, and false pretension to prophecy would be subject to civil penalties up to and including the death penalty.
Bahnsen’s views at this point are characteristic of the views of Christian Reconstructionism as a whole. It would be easy to multiply quotations which would evince this with reference to both North and Rushdoony. One practical illustration of this view is North’s remark that Christians should work to get the tax exemptions of “liberal” churches lifted (denied). [2]
It is obvious that in any theonomically organized state religious liberty would be constantly threatened by the civil government. If a civil government feels itself responsible to judicially penalize, public sabbath-breaking, apostasy, heresy, and blasphemy, then religious liberty is in real jeopardy.
2.) The Biblical View of the Separation of Church and State Defended
a.) The Presumption of Such a Separation
We begin again here by reminding ourselves of the redemptive history of the Theocratic Kingdom. With the expiration of the partially restored Theocratic order in A. D. 70, all civil authority ceased to be Theocratic in the sense in which we have defined that word in these lectures. God is no longer the unique king of any civil entity. No nation is now mandated to adhere to a divinely revealed civil order. While the moral principles enshrined in the laws of the Old covenant remain authoritative, no nation is bound to the detailed, civil order of Old Testament Israel. Add to all of this the destruction of the Temple as the earthly throne of Yahweh and one must also conclude that no longer are church and state a united entity. The redeemed community no longer has a civil structure. Thus, the divine establishment of the Gentile civil authorities means that the separation of the civil and ecclesiastical institutions in human society is now God’s preceptive will. The alteration of this order will be signaled only by the return of Christ. Thus, the separation of church and state is assumed and commanded by the Lord Jesus Christ when he directed that we should “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s” (Matt. 22:21).
b.) The Arguments for Such a Separation
Many arguments could be brought forward in defense of religious freedom or soul liberty. I will only mention two:
(1) Dictating religious belief and worship is not the task or function of the state. It is outside the sphere of the civil authorities.
The state is to preserve civil justice and peace and protect men from violence to their bodies or property. This is the teaching of the Bible (Rom. 13:3, 4; Mt. 22:21; I Tim. 2:2; 1 Pet. 2:14; Ps. 82:1-4, 58:2, Deut. 4:27; Gen 6:11, 12, 9:5, 6; Ps. 72:14, Ezek. 7:23, 45:9; Prov. 21:15, 24:11, 12, 29:14, 26, 31:5).
Men may and do differ as to religious belief without disrupting the peace or offering violence to others. The weapon of the civil authority is the sword. Swords are not good weapons, they are not even the right weapons, with which to mold or rule men’s consciences. Civil authority rules mens’ bodies, not their souls (Neh. 9:37).
(2) For a state to dictate religious belief or worship inevitably requires the State to rule the church or the church to rule the state. Since the Bible teaches the sphere-sovereignty of both the state and the church under God, to require the state to restrain violations of the first table of the law necessarily violates the teaching of Scripture.
The Westminster Confession of Faith in its original form is the best illustration of this. In chapter 23 and paragraph 3 it states:
The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.
In Chapter 21 and paragraph 4 of this original edition of the Westminster Confession provided similarly that
…for their publishing such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation), or to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against, by the censures of the Church, and by the power of the civil magistrate.
How can the state do such things without seriously compromising the church’s sovereignty under God? Without making the church a slave of men? It can’t!
3.) The Objection to Such Separation
A serious objection must now be addressed. Isn’t the civil authority to rule according to the Word of God? If so, how can it allow religious freedom? Must it not, therefore, enforce the first table of the law? If God forbids idolatry, for instance, must not the state also forbid and penalize idolatry and, therefore, proscribe Mormonism, Islam, Hinduism, and, indeed, any religion which does not profess to worship the Christian Trinity?
Here a crucial distinction must be enunciated. It is certainly true that civil authority is subject to the Word of God, but this does not mean that it is the duty of the civil authority to enforce every part of God’s Word with his own authority. Several illustrations will make this clear.
Eph. 6:4 requires, “And you fathers bring up your children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” Is the civil magistrate required to enforce this. No! Why? Because the Word is not his authority? No! But because He is not a Father. Note also the exhortations to pastors in I Pet. 5:2. Should the civil magistrate enforce this? No, because he is not a pastor. John Murray well says,
Since the civil magistrate is invested with this authority by God and is obliged by divine ordinance to discharge these functions, he is responsible to God, the one living and true God who alone has ordained him. The magistrate is, therefore, under obligation to discharge the office devolving upon him in accordance with the revealed will of God. The Bible is the supreme and infallible revelation of God’s will and it is, therefore, the supreme and infallible rule in all departments of life. The civil magistrate is under obligation to recognize it as the infallible rule for the exercise of civil magistracy.
It must be recognized, however, that it is only within his own restricted sphere of authority that the civil magistrate, in his capacity as civil magistrate, is to apply the revelation of God’s will as provided in Scripture. It is only to the extent to which the revelation of Scripture bears upon the functions discharged by the state and upon the performance of the office of the civil magistrate, that he, in the discharge of these functions, is bound to fulfil the demands of Scripture. If the civil magistrate should attempt, in his capacity as magistrate, to carry into effect the demands of Scripture which bear upon him in other capacities, or the demands of Scripture upon other institutions, he would immediately be guilty of violating his prerogatives and of contravening the requirements of Scripture.
The sphere of the church is distinct from that of the civil magistrate….What needs to be appreciated now is that its sphere is co-ordinate with that of the state. The church is not subordinate to the state, nor is the state subordinate to the church. They are both subordinate to God, and to Christ in his mediatorial dominion as head over all things to his body the church. Both church and state are under obligation to recognize this subordination, and the corresponding co-ordination of their respective spheres of operation in the divine institution. Each must maintain and assert its autonomy in reference to the other and preserve its freedom from intrusion on the part of the other.[3]
Why is the civil magistrate not to enforce the “first Table of the Law”? Because he is somehow not subject to the Word of God? No! Because it’s not his job!
4.) The Limits of Such Separation
Are there limits to religious freedom? When anyone’s religion disrupts civil justice or peace and threatens violence to others, then it exposes itself to the legitimate action of the state and must be restrained. Moloch Worship, Jehovah’s Witnesses’ refusal of blood transfusions for their children, and abortion are several examples of religiously held “rights” which should not be permitted.
II.) A Reformed Hermeneutic of Mosaic Law
How are we to tell which laws in the Old Covenant we must obey as Christians and which we need not obey?
This is the pressing question. In rejecting the alternative of Theonomy we have not settled this serious and practical issue. It is incumbent upon a treatment like this to provide some direction on this question. This is, however, a massive matter. The following is offered only as a general outline of the proper approach to this question.
1.) General Premises
a.) The Old Covenant is the most concentrated Biblical revelation of law and the central Biblical revelation of moral law.
The NT does not reveal, but rather assumes a system of ethics (Matt. 7:12; Luke 18:18-20; Rom. 13:8, 9; 1 Cor. 14:34, 35; James 1:25; 2:8-12; Jn. 1:17.)
b.) We must distinguish between the Old Covenant law as a temporary covenant and a permanent revelation.
Compare Heb. 8:13 with Eph. 6:1f; Gal. 3:19f. While the Old Covenant as a temporary covenant no longer binds us, as a permanent revelation of God and His moral law it does bind us.
Thus, we cannot answer the question with either of the two, extreme, (and superficial) answers. There is the answer of Dispensationalism. This is that nothing in the Old Covenant per se binds the Christian. There is the opposite answer, that to which Theonomy tends. This is that everything in the Old Covenant binds the Christian. According to the New Testament both of these answers are too facile. Some things do and some things do not bind us. We must be able to tell the difference.
c.) The moral law revealed in the Old Covenant has already been revealed to every man because its demands are written in his heart by creation. Man, therefore, by nature has certain ideas about right and wrong.
Cf. the following passages Rom. 2:14, 15 (The law mentioned in this passage is clearly according to the context the law given at Sinai.); 1 Cor. 11:13-15.
This natural revelation–granted–is suppressed by man’s depravity. Thus, a written revelation is necessary to make God’s demands clear to sinners. Yet, this means that no man approaches the question of his ethical duty as a blank slate. He approaches the question with a basic knowledge of that duty which barring his sin should guide him in sorting of the Old Covenant laws! Only his sin prevents this!
d.) Anything not abolished in Christ remains as the Christian’s duty.
Compare the exposition Matt. 5:17, 18. The Old Covenant was temporary because it was preparatory and pointed forward to Christ. Anything that was not at least in principle abolished by Christ was obviously not part of its temporary character. Examples of such temporary aspects of the Old Covenant are multiplied in the New Testament.
–The priestly and sacrificial laws (Hebrews 7-10).
–The dietary laws (Acts 10, 11 with Mk. 7:19).
–The judicial laws as part of the civil state of Israel (Luke 21:20-24; Acts 6:13-15; Heb. 8:13; 9:18-22; 10:1)
Obviously anything re-affirmed in the New Covenant by Christ or the Apostles is law for the Christian, but it is not necessary for a law to be explicitly reiterated. As long as it is not abolished by Christ, it remains in force.
Problems remain, of course, even after stating this premise. This is epitomized by the phrase used above, “at least in principle.” There are still gray areas. Hence other rules of thumb are necessary. This brings us to certain more specific guidelines.
2.) Specific Guidelines
a.) Any ordinance present from creation has abiding relevance for the Christian.
Any point at which the Mosaic regulations deviate from a creation mandate they obviously are part of the temporary aspects of the Old Covenant. Note Matt. 19:1-10. What originated at creation must endure as long as creation itself is not altered (Matt. 5:17, 19, Luke 20:34-36).
b.) Any law which is part of the Ten Commandments is permanent.
It is common in our day to raise an objection against the distinction between the moral and ceremonial dimensions of Old Covenant. It is argued that the Old Covenant was a unit and did not distinguish between one law and another. The Jews, it is said, could not have guessed which laws were moral and which ceremonial. We believe, however, that this distinction was made very plainly for the Jews. Who made the distinction? God did! God clearly distinguished the Ten from the rest. How?
–By speaking the Ten Commandments alone with his own voice
–By writing them alone with his own finger
–By writing them alone in stone, rather than a book
–By putting them alone in the ark of the covenant
In these ways at least God clearly distinguished one part of the Old Covenant law from the rest.
c.) Any law which the Gentiles as well as the Jews were obliged to obey is thereby revealed to be part of the natural law written on the heart of all men.
The obligation of the Gentiles to obey God presupposes a revelation informing them of their obligation. Since the Gentiles did not have special revelation, such laws must have been part of the general revelation of God’s law written on their hearts by creation. This perspective enables us to answer the question, Are the laws of Leviticus 18 for us? Cf. Lev. 18:6-23 and note particularly Lev. 18:1-5, 24-30. Clearly these laws do bind Christians. This is confirmed by the assumption of Paul in 1 Cor. 5:1f. that these laws obliged and should have been plainly understood by all the Corinthians.
3.) Test Cases
Two test cases will serve to show the relevance of the premises and guidelines mentioned above in discerning the abiding relevance of Old Testament laws to ourselves. The first case will be a positive example, the second a negative. Again, it is necessary to remind the reader that this treatment is intended only as simple sketch, showing the main lines of thought to be followed in discerning Old Covenant laws
a.) The Positive Example: The Sabbath
The weekly sabbath is a well-known crux of scriptural ethics. But the things mentioned above provide a straightforward answer as to its relevance for the Christian. It is a creation ordinance. It is part of the Ten Commandments. It obliged Gentiles dwelling among the Jews, at least, (Exod. 20:8-11). Thus, in terms of each of the three specific guidelines mentioned above the sabbath qualifies as abidingly relevant for the Christian.
Question is, of course, raised by many with reference to certain of the premises mentioned earlier. Some argue that the sabbath was abolished by Christ on the basis of passages like Col. 2, Gal. 4, and Rom. 14. Others argue that the Sabbath was not part of the law of nature. Each of these arguments has only partial validity.
It is true that the precise day of the week and even the length of the week is not part of the content of the law of nature. The most that can be said is that natural reason might anticipate that the appointed day of worship would not be much more or much less than one in seven. However, that God must be worshiped, worshiped corporately, and, thus, that a specified time must necessarily be appointed for that worship and appointed by God himself–all these things seem clearly a part of the law of nature to this writer. The true case seems to be that the law of the Sabbath is a mixed commandment; part natural and part positive. The implication of this must be noted. The positive part of the commandment could be changed, while the natural law underlying it embodied in a new institution. As a matter of fact, this is precisely what the biblical data indicates did happen. This brings us to the second issue raised above.
It is not necessary to deny that the seventh day sabbath was abolished by Christ or that this is the reference of, for instance, Col. 2:16, 17, though many fine exegetes have done so. It is simply necessary to distinguish the sabbath as a dictate of natural law from the sabbath as a positive law. That is to say, we must distinguish between the sabbath as a moral principle and the sabbath as a positive institution. As a positive institution, it is abolished. As a moral principle, it is re-incarnated in the Lord’s Day. It re-emerges in the Christian observance of the first day of the week. It is simply fallacious and hopelessly superficial to make Col. 2:16, 17 the first, last, and only statement of the Bible on the subject of the sabbath. It is downright wrong to ignore all those considerations mentioned above which lead directly to the conclusion that the sabbath is a moral principle abidingly relevant in all ages. It is impermissible to ignore and isolate all that the New Testament teaches regarding the first day of the week (Rev. 1:10, 1 Cor. 16:1, 2, Acts 20:7, 2:1, Jn. 20:1, 26).
b.) The Negative Example: the Year of Jubilee
In contrast to the sabbath day the sabbath year is on the basis of the principles enunciated above clearly not abidingly relevant for the Christian. It is not a creation ordinance, not a part of the Ten Commandments, not obligatory for Gentiles, (Lev. 25:39-55), and fulfilled and abolished by Christ (Lev. 4:16-19, 21:20-24.) both because it points to Christ’s work and because it was a civil law of Israel.
Conclusion
Are there not still gray areas? Yes and we must seek for greater light to discern and do God’s law of liberty. In the meantime such obscurities make us thankful for the fact and remind us that we are saved by grace and not the works of the law!
[1]Ibid, pp. 426, 427
[2]Gary North, The Theology of Christian Resistance, A Symposium, ed. by Gary North, (Tyler, TX, Geneva Divinity School, 1983), p. 64.
[3]Murray, Collected Writings, vol. 1, pp. 253, 254.
Sam Waldron
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 10, 2023 11:30:15 GMT -5
Theonomy: A Reformed Baptist Assessment
What is Theonomic Postmillenialism?
In the interest of fairness and clarity, it is well to begin by permitting Christian Reconstructionists to speak for themselves. Having permitted both Rushdoony and North to describe in their own terms the nature of their postmillennialism, we will conclude this presentation by observing three features of their eschatology.
Rushdoony in his popular booklet entitled The Meaning of Postmillennialism: God’s Plan for Victory presents his eschatology in stark contrast to all defeatist eschatologies whether premillennial or amillennial. Speaking of these other eschatologies, he says,
In theory, the amillennial position holds that there is a parallel development of good and evil, of God’s Kingdom and Satan’s Kingdom. In reality, amillennialism holds that the major area of growth and power is in Satan’s Kingdom, because the world is seen as progressively falling away to Satan, the church’s trials and tribulations increasing, and the end of the world finding the church lonely and sorely beset. There is no such thing as a millennium or a triumph of Christ and His Kingdom in history. The role of the saints is at best to grin and bear it, and more likely to be victims and martyrs. The world will go from bad to worse in the pessimistic viewpoint. The Christian must retreat from the world of action in the realization that there is no hope for this world, no world-wide victory of Christ’s cause, nor world peace and righteousness. The law of God is irrelevant, because there is no plan of conquest, no plan of triumph in Christ’s name and power. At best, God’s law is a plan for private morality, not for men and nations in their every aspect. Not surprisingly, amillennialism produces a retreating and crabbed outlook, a church in which men have no thought of victory but only of endless nit-picking about trifles. It produces a phariseeism of men who believe they are the elect in a world headed for hell, a select elite who must withdraw from the futility of the world around them. It produces what can be called an Orthodox Pharisees Church, wherein failure is a mark of election. Lest this seem an exaggeration, one small denomination has a habit of regarding pastors who produce growth in their congregations with some suspicion, because it is openly held by many pastors that growth is a mark of compromise, whereas incompetence and failure are marks of election! Amillennial pastors within this church regularly insist that success surely means compromise, and their failures are a mark of purity and election. Not surprisingly, postmillennials cannot long remain in this basically and almost exclusively amillennial church.
Let us now examine some common traits of amillennialism and premillennialism. First, both regard attempts to build a Christian society or to further Christian reconstruction as either futile or wrong. If God has decreed that the world’s future is one of downward spiral, then indeed Christian reconstruction is futile. As a prominent premillennial pastor and radio preacher, the Rev. J. Vernon McGee declared in the early 1950’s, “You don’t polish brass on a sinking ship.” If the world is a sinking ship, then efforts to eliminate prostitution, crime, or any kind of social evil, and to expect the Christian conquest of the social order, are indeed futile.”[1]
He concludes this booklet with a summary of his own eschatology,
Postmillennialism is the faith that Christ will through His people accomplish and put into force the glorious prophecies of Isaiah and all the Scriptures, that He shall overcome all His enemies through His covenant people, and that He shall exercise His power and Kingdom in all the world and over all men and nations, so that, whether in faith or in defeat, every knee shall bow to Him and every tongue shall confess God (Rom. 14:11; Phil. 2:11). . . .
How is Christ’s Kingdom to come? Scripture is again very definite and explicit. The glorious peace and prosperity of Christ’s reign will be brought about ONLY as people obey the covenant law. In Lev. 26, Deut. 28, and all of Scripture, this is plainly stated. There will be peace and prosperity in the land, the enemy will be destroyed, and men will be free of evils only “If ye walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments, and do them (Lev. 26:3). The obedience of faith to the law of God produces IRRESISTIBLE BLESSINGS. “And all these blessings shall come on thee, and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God” (Deut. 28:2). On the other hand, disobedience leads to IRRESISTIBLE CURSES. . . .
God’s determination of history is thus plainly described in His law. If we believe and obey, then we are blessed and we prosper in Him; if we deny Him and disobey His law, we are cursed and confounded. . . .
. . . Antinomian postmillennials deny the God-given way to God’s Kingdom when they by-pass the law. In effect, they posit without reference to it, a rapture! How else is the world going to move from its present depravity into God’s order? Are we going to float in on vague prayers and “higher-life” spirituality? The antinomian postmillennials have no answer.
The charge is often raised that the postmillennialism of colonial and 19th century Calvinism led to the Social Gospel of the 20th century. No one has documented this charge, which is obviously false. The Hodges, Warfield, Machen, and others were not the source of the Social Gospel, and were hostile to it. The roots of that movement are in Arminianism, and, very directly, in that notable humanist-revivalist, C. G. Finney.[2]
North in his popularization of Theonomy gives this summary of his eschatological outlook,
But it isn’t enough to proclaim the foundations of a godly society, nor is it sufficient to describe some of the institutional arrangements of such a society. What is needed is a dynamic, a psychologically motivating impulse to give godly men confidence that their efforts are not in vain, and that their work for the kingdom of God will have meaning in the future, not just in heaven, but in time and on earth. We need a goal to sacrifice for, a standard of performance that is at the same time a legitimate quest. What is needed is confidence that all this talk about the marvels of the kingdom of God becomes more than mere talk. What is needed is a view of history that guarantees to Christians external, visible victory, in time and on earth, as a prelude, a down payment, to the absolute and eternal victory which Christians are confident awaits them after the day of judgment. . . .
. . . What if the following scenario were the case? First, God saves men through the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Second, these men respond in faith to God’s dominion assignment, given to us through our fathers, Adam, Noah, and Christ in the great commission (Matthew 28:18-20). Third, these regenerate men begin to study the law of God, subduing their own hearts, lives, and areas of responsibility in terms of God’s comprehensive law-order. Fourth, the blessings of God begin to flow toward these who are acting in His name and in terms of His law. Fifth, the stewardship principle of “service as a road to leadership” begins to be acknowledged by those who call themselves Christian, in every sphere of life: family, institutional church, schools, civil government, economy. This leads to step six, the rise to prominence of Christians in every sphere of life, as Satanists become increasingly impotent to handle the crises that their world-and-life view has created. Seventh, the law of God is imposed progressively across the face of each society which has declared commitment to Christ. Eighth, this provokes foreign nations to jealousy, and they begin to imitate the Christian social order, in order to receive the external blessings. Ninth, even the Jews are provoked to jealousy, and they convert to Christ. Tenth, the conversion of the Jews leads to an unparalleled explosion of conversions, followed by even greater external blessings. Eleventh, the kingdom of God becomes worldwide in scope, serving as a down payment by God to His people on the restoration which will come beyond the day of judgment. Twelfth, the forces of Satan have something to provoke them to rebellion, after generations of subservience outwardly to the benefits-producing law of God. Thirteenth, this rebellion by Satan is immediately smashed by Christ in His final return in glory and judgment. Fourteenth, Satan, his troops of angels, and his human followers are judged, and then condemned to the lake of fire. And finally, fifteenth, God sets up His new heaven and new earth, for regenerate men to serve in throughout all eternity. . . .
. . .If men really believed that this scenario is possible–indeed, inevitable–would they not redouble their efforts to begin to subdue the earth?[3]
Later in the same book North elaborates upon this summary.[4]
Three features of this eschatological outlook must now be underscored. The first is its ethical rationale or, at least its intimate ethical association. Theonomic Postmillennialists believe their system is demanded or, at least strongly commended by its power to motivate men to keep God’s law in every worldly sphere of life. This is a thread which runs throughout Rushdoony’s The Meaning of Postmillennialism.[5] North’s description of his eschatological outlook as “dynamic, a psychologically motivating impulse” makes this explicit. Theonomists reason that since the dominion mandate of Genesis 1 demands that we subdue every area of life to God by means of His law, then that eschatology which most encourages us to do so must be the best and most Biblical eschatology.
The second feature which emerges from these quotations is the self-conscious peculiarity of Theonomic postmillennialism. Though they can cite those like Jonathan Edwards whom they call “pietistic postmillennialists” when it suits them,[6] the quote from Rushdoony above evinces a self-conscious distance from those whom Rushdoony calls “antinomian postmillennialists.” North in another work identifies Jonathan Edwards himself with such pietistic, antinomian postmillennialists. Chilton writes in his book, Days of Vengeance,
The great defect with the postmillennial revival inaugurated by Jonathan Edwards and his followers in the eighteenth century was their neglect of biblical law. They expected to see the blessings of God come as a result of merely soteriological preaching. Look at Edwards’ Treatise on the Religious Affections. There is nothing on the law of God on culture. Page after page is filled with the words “sweet” and “sweetness.” a diabetic reader is almost risking a relapse by reading this book in one sitting. The words sometimes appear four or five times on a page. And while Edwards was preaching the sweetness of God, Arminian semi-literates were “hot-gospeling” the Holy Commonwealth of Connecticut into political antinomianism. Where sweetness and emotional hot flashes are concerned, Calvinistic preaching is no match for antinomian sermons. The hoped-for revival of the 1700s became the Arminian revivals of the early 1800s, leaving emotionally burned-over districts, cults, and the abolitionist movement as their devastating legacy. Because the postmillennial preaching of the Edwardians was culturally antinomian and pietistic, it crippled the remnants of Calvinistic political order in the New England colonies, helping to produce a vacuum that Arminianism and then Unitarianism filled.[7]
It is clear that one peculiarity of Theonomic postmillennialism is its emphasis on the application of Biblical law to every area of human life as the means of bringing about millennial blessing. As North is fond of reminding us, the law is man’s instrument or “tool of dominion.”[8] As the quote from Rushdoony makes clear the full, present applicability of the blessings described in Lev. 26 and Deut. 28 (and there promised to the obedience of Israel, the Theocratic nation), is the crucial link which connects obedience to the law with millennial blessing. North seconds Rushdoony’s point.
God established His covenant with Adam, and again with Noah. It was a dominion covenant. It was man’s authorization to subdue the earth, but under God’s overall authority and under His law. God also covenanted with Abram, changing his name to Abraham, and instituting the sign of His covenant, circumcision. He covenanted with Jacob, Abraham’s grandson, changing his name to Israel, promising to bless Jacob’s efforts (Genesis 32:24-30). God covenanted with Moses and the children of Israel, promising to bless them if they conformed to His laws, but curse them if they disobeyed (Deuteronomy 8:28). The covenant was a treaty, and it involved mutual obligations and promises. The ruler, God, offers the peace treaty to a man or selection of men, and they in turn accept its terms of surrender. The treaty spells out mutual obligations: protection and blessings from the King, and obedience on the part of the servants. It also spells out the term of judgement: cursings from the King in case of rebellion on the part of the servants.
This same covenant is extended to the church to day. It covers the institutional church, and it also applies to nations that agree to conform their laws to God’s standards . . . .
The law of God also provides us with a tool of external dominion. God promises blessings for that society which surrenders unconditionally to Him, and then adopts the terms of His peace treaty (Deuteronomy 8 and 28).
Fourth, the blessings of God begin to flow in the direction of His people. “A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children’s children: and the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just” (Proverbs 13:22). As Benjamin Franklin said, honesty is the best policy. Capital flows to those who will bear responsibility, predict the future accurately, plan to meet the needs of consumers with a minimum of waste, and deal honestly with both suppliers and customers. Again, Deuteronomy 8 and 28 show us the nature of this wealth-transfer process. This wealth-transfer program is through market completion and conformity to God’s law. Satan’s kingdom is progressively decapitalized.[9]
This use of Deut. 28 and parallel passages is a critical linchpin in the Theonomic argument for postmillennialism.
The third feature of Theonomic postmillennialism which must be underscored, though implicit in the above quotations, is not explicit. It is their rejection of what Chilton calls “Chiliastic Postmillennialism.”[10] Rather, they argue for the historical continuity of the present age until the return of Christ after their golden age. They reject the idea that the millennium or at least the future millennial blessings are to be brought in by a single catastrophic event. Chilton in his commentary on the Book of Revelation writing on Rev. 20 asserts,
Millennarianism can take two general forms. It can be either Premillennarianism (with the Second Coming as the cataclysm that ushers in the Millennium), or Postmillennarianism (with the Social Revolution as the cataclysm). Examples of the first branch of Chiliasm would be, of course, the Ebionite movement of the Early Church period, and the modern Dispensationalism of the Scofield-Ryrie school. Examples of the Postmillennarian heresy would be easy to name as well: the Munster Revolt of 1534, Nazism, and Marxism (whether “Christian” or otherwise). Orthodox Christianity rejects both forms of the Millennarian heresy. Christianity opposes the notion of any new redemptive cataclysm occurring before the Last Judgment. Christianity is anti-revolutionary. Thus, while Christians have always looked forward to the salvation of the world, believing that Christ died and rose again for that purpose, they have also seen the Kingdom’s work as leavening influence, gradually transforming the world into the image of God. The definitive cataclysm has already taken place, in the finished work of Christ. Depending on the specific question being asked, therefore, orthodox Christianity can be considered either amillennial or postmillennial because, in reality, it is both. . . .
With the rise of divergent eschatologies over the last two centuries, the traditional evangelical optimism of the Church was tagged with the term “postmillennialism,” whether the so-called “postmillennialists” liked it or not. This has had positive results. On the plus side, it is (as we have seen) a technically accurate description of orthodoxy; and it carries the connotation of optimism. On the minus side, it can too often be confused with heretical millennarianism. And, while, “amillennialism” rightly expresses the orthodox abhorrence of apocalyptic revolution, it carries (both by name and by historic association) a strong connotation of defeatism. The present writer therefore calls himself a “postmillennialist,” but also seeks to be sensitive to the inadequacies of current theological terminology. . . .
Some have sought to remedy this by styling themselves “optimistic amillennialists,” a term that has nothing wrong with it except a mouthful of syllables (the term “non-chiliastic postmillennialist” suffers from the same problem.)[11]
North likewise argues from the parables of Matt. 13.
If we are to take the parables seriously, then we have to begin to think about the continuity of history in between Pentecost and the final judgment. If there is no great break coming which will divide this period into two or more segments, then whatever happens to the world, the flesh, the devil, and the church (institutional) must happen without direct, cataclysmic intervention, either from God or Satan. The process will be one of growth or decay. The process may be an ebb and flow, heading for victory for the church or defeat for the church, in time and on earth. But what cannot possibly be true is that the church’s victory process or defeat process will be interrupted and reversed by the direct, visible physical intervention of Jesus Christ and His angels. No discontinuity of history which overcomes the very processes of history in one cataclysmic break will take place. Christians must not base their hopes for collective or personal victory on an historically unprecedented event in history which is in fact the destruction of history. They will sink or swim, win or lose, in time and on earth, by means of the same sorts of processes as we see today, although the speed will increase or decrease in response to man’s ethical conformity to God’s law, or his rebellion against that law.[12]
The Theonomic writers we have quoted are to be commended for avoiding a clearly unbiblical extremism and their attempt to embrace a Biblical perspective essentially alien to their own.
[1]Rushdoony, The Meaning of Postmillennialism, pp. 8, 9, 10 Cf. pp. 2, 10
[2]Ibid, pp. 53-56
[3]Gary North, Unconditional Surrender, God’s Program for Victory, (Tyler, TX, Geneva Divinity School Press 1983) pp. 176-177
[4]Ibid, pp. 196-201
[5]Rushdoony, The Meaning of Postmillennialism, pp. 2, 8-10, 16-27, 29, 30
[6]Ibid, pp. 21-23
[7]Ibid, pp. 21-23
[8] North, Unconditional Surrender, p. 73
[9] Chilton, op. cit., p. 495
[10] Chilton, op. cit., p. 495
[11] Ibid, pp. 495, 496, 498
[12]North, Unconditional Surrender, pp. 182, 193
|
|
