Sunday, June 7, 2009

A Refutation of Theonomy Part 2

Part 2: A Refutation of the arguments in favor of Theonomy

In my last post I offered positive biblical reasons for doubting Theonomy, so I thought it would be only fair to look at the biblical reasons that theonomist use to support their position and then to refute the theonomic view of those biblical texts.

In the next post I will deal with some theological arguments that theonomists give.


I will start with the most popular argument given by theonomists from Matthew 5:17, it reads:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to *fulfill* them.

Explanation: The theonomists wants to translated the Greek word *pleroo* as uphold or establish. Thus, the reading of this text would look something like this: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to uphold (pleroo) them. Thus, from this text the theonomists establishes the principle that we are to bring over the Mosaic laws unless they are abrogated in the New Covenant. The problem with this is that this Greek word throughout Matthews Gospel is not used in this way. In fact throughout Matthews Gospel "pleroo" consistently means brought to true meaning in the redemptive historical sense or prophetic fulfillment of some kind (Matt. 1:22;2:15;3:15;5:17;13:35;21:4;21:22). The theonomists has one good response to this sort of objection, they say that the word abolish followed by a "but" suggests a antithesis or a definite contrast and thus the only contrast to abolish is uphold or establish. The problem with this is that Jesus could not necessarily be saying something the opposite but merely something different. For example, If I say I did not come to eat dinner with you but I came to tell you a quick joke. Here we see that a "but" does not mean necessarily complete opposites, but rather indicating that you are simply doing something different (Thanks to Professor Steven M. Baugh for this Point). Jesus in Matthew 5:17 is doing something different than abolishing the law rather Jesus is bringing the law to eschatological completion, or to put it more simply: Jesus is fulfilling the law by bringing out it's true purpose and meaning. Thus, given the context of Matthews Gospel and a few other clarifications we see that there is no reason why we should take this passage the way the theonomists takes it especially when it contradicts clearer scripture (Heb. 8:13; 2 Cor. 3).

Hebrews 2:2-3 2 For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, 3 how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard,

Explanation: Theonomists try to say that the argument being made here is that the Mosaic Law gave just punishments to the people under it then how much worse is the just punishment going to be if we disobey the New Covenant. The theonomists believes that if the non-theonomic view point were true then it would have to make nonsense out of the text in this specific fashion: The Mosaic covenant was only just for a little while and then it became abolished and failed to be just so then the punishment we will receive from the new covenant for disobeying it will also be abolished and fail to be just. The reason they think this is because they believe that the author is making an argument from the lesser to the greater. A argument like this looks something like this: If a lesser x is true then how much more is the greater y true. I want to start off saying that I agree with the theonomists that this verse is arguing from the lesser from the greater like Hebrews 10:26-30. However, I do believe that a non-theonomists can affirm this argument that the author of Hebrews is making without believing in theonomy. In the situation of the Mosaic covenant it was just to execute people for committing adultery and I think given those circumstances it will always be just. However, since we are in a different ethical circumstances of the new covenant our moral obligations are different. But that is fundamentally different from saying that the Mosaic covenant that God established in those circumstances were unjust. Rather what the non-theonomists ought to affirm is that they will always be just in those circumstances, but those circumstances will never obtain again because we are now under a new covenant and the old is faded away (Heb. 8:13).

Matthew 15:4-6: For God commanded, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.' 5 But you say, 'If anyone tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is given to God, 6 he need not honor his father.' So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God.

Explanation: The theonomists wants to say that Jesus here is affirming the death penalty from a part of the Mosaic law. Even if this were true this would not prove the entire thesis of theonomy; which is that there is a presumed continuity between the new covenant and the Mosaic covenant. But suppose we were to forget about those two points, does this passage teach that Jesus is bringing over a part of the Mosaic law, specifically a law that says we ought to execute our children if they disobey us? All Jesus seems to be doing here is showing how the religious leaders are hypocritical and inconsistent with the Mosaic law they say they follow. Far from this being an endorsement of executing disobedient children this is more a condemnation on the religious leadership in Jesus' day.

Romans 3:31 31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

Explanation: Theonomists see this as support for Matthew 5:17 as being another reference to the idea that there is a presumed continuity between the Mosaic covenant and the new covenant. However, the Greek word nomos does not mean the Mosaic law here since that is clearly abolished elsewhere in Paul (Rom. 6:14;2 Cor. 3). Rather, this verse in context is talking about how we as Christians should not just forget about following the law of God revealed in the New covenant because we have been justified by faith so now we should obey the law. This obedience to the law of God is a rule for sanctification that is produced by gratitude for what Christ has done for us. In Reformed theology this use of the law is called the third use. Paul is teaching the third use of the law rather than bringing the covenant of Moses into the covenant earned by Christ.

Romans 13:1-4 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.

Explanation: Theonomists see this passage as suggesting that there ought to be state laws that are right and wrong in order for the secular authorities to have been instituted by God and able to justly punish guilty individuals. They argue that the non-theonomists cannot offer a objective standard of right or wrong in the realm of the state so we therefore have to go to the law of Moses as our standard for how a state ought to function. The problem with this argument is that the non-theonomists do have a standard by which they can determine wrong or right state laws, this law is called natural law. Natural law is taught twice in the book of Romans (1:32;2:14). Natural law is the general law revealed to all humanity that enables them to know the difference between right or wrong. With this understanding of natural law we see that the theonomists has no argument to offer with this verse.

In Conclusion:

We have seen that the biblical arguments given for theonomy are altogether unconvincing and unreasonable. However, there are more theological arguments that theonomist offer that I will deal with in the next post.

9 comments:

  1. Nathanael,
    A question about this post and one about the part 1 post.

    Regarding the theonomist objection (regarding Rom. 13) that without the Mosaic judicial laws we do not have an objective standard by which to judge what the government's laws and punishments should be, you say that we have natural law and so we do have an objective standard to appeal to besides the Mosaic judicial law. However, the theonomist could modify his objection in this way: fine, you have an objective standard in natural law; however, surely natural law cannot be inconsistent with the Mosaic law (or was the Mosaic law in contradiction to natural law?). Therefore, we should believe that the state ought to adopt the Mosaic judicial law; for we have here a special revelation of the deliverances of general revelation in natural law.

    In part 1 you say: "If the Law from the Mosaic covenant is not repeated in the New Testament then it is abrogated or abolished."

    Does this mean that the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th commandments (in the Decalogue) have been abrogated? And regarding the other commandments in the Decalogue, does the New Testament actually re-command these laws (and thereby entering them into the law of the new covenant) or rather presuppose their still occurring? That is, when Paul, for instance, gives instruction about stealing or lying or sexual immorality, is he really extending the validity of certain laws that would have ceased to be normative if he had not mentioned them, or is he calling attention to laws that were already normative? The first question gets at whether your position that we should presume discontinuity between the Mosaic and New covenants has unwelcome consequences. The second gets at just how intuitive this hermeneutical principle should be taken to be, and whether it really seems to be the view of the apostles.

    Also, regarding your statement: "Romans 6:14 14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
    Explanation..."

    There seems to be a problem with the view that 'law' here refers to the Mosaic law. Whatever Paul means by 'law' here, it gives rise in the next verse to the thought that we could go on sinning ("Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?") So what Paul means by 'law' is something which might (mistakenly) lead one to become antinominian. But if 'law' means Mosaic law this would not happen. For the New covenant also has laws for conduct, and further, Gentiles who never received the Mosaic revelation also have (natural) laws for conduct. It seems to me Paul, in saying that we are no longer under 'law' is saying that we are not under the condemnation of 'law' in a broad, creational sense (i.e., not under law in the sense of the moral law that is operative at all places and times and revealed either in conscience or in Scripture). Our dying with Chris (v. 8ff.) saves us not from the condemnation of the Mosaic law per se but from the condemnation of this more general law with respect to which certain commandments in the Mosaic law are one manifestation or revelation. Hence I don't see how this verse refutes theonomy, for the theonomist could agree that we, as believers, are not under the condemnation or penalty of the natural law and/or Mosaic law; but nevertheless (he might say) we are commanded to obey God's revealed law, including the Mosaic judicial law.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey Dan,

    I will answer all three of your questions to the best of my ability.

    Question 1:

    The Mosaic law and the natural law can have overlapping laws as you mentioned. But the theonomic objection here is that other than the Mosaic law there is no other objective standard and therefore we are required to carry over the Mosaic law. The problem is we have clear indication that this is not the case (Heb. 8:13) and also this prevents the necessary philosophical inference that there is no objective moral standard a part from the Mosaic law. With these things in mind the theonomist has no reason to see this as referring to the Mosaic law. To make my point clearer I will ask this question: Why should we see Romans 13 as making a reference to the Mosaic law to guide governments rather than just the natural law, especially considering the fact that the New Testament teaches against the presumed continuity of the Mosaic and the New covenant (Heb. 8:13)? It seems that we have no reason to see this passage as referring to the Mosaic law at all.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Question 2:

    The New Testament repeats these all of the laws of the ten commandments except the sabbath day which is in fact abrogated in the new covenant:

    Commandment 1: Matt. 4:10
    Commandment 2: 1 John 5:21
    Commandment 3: Rom. 2:24; 1 Tim 6:1
    Commandment 4: Abrogated Col. 2:16
    Commandment 5: Matt. 19:19
    Commandment 6-10: Rom. 13:9

    The commandments that are in the Mosaic covenant that are in the New Covenant are necessary moral truths and so they would be in every covenant because God cannot command other than what is a reflection of his perfect nature. These Moral truths can be known to us through reveal intuition (natural law) or by reading the pages of the New Testament. So by them being mentioned in the New Testament does not make them true rather it is just affirming what is already true in every covenant.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I will respond to your last paragraph here objecting to my interpretation of Romans 6:14.

    The problem with the condemnation of the Law interpretation is the Greek word nomos cannot mean lexically condemnation of the law. So to put that in as a gloss is lexically illegitimate. I believe my view can account for verse 15. Paul anticipates the objection because they are under a new gracious covenant and because this covenant is more gracious than the Mosaic law does this mean that they are just able to sin it up? Paul answers this by saying of course not. So I think my interpretation can account for verse 16 and is a real lexical possibility and for these reasons it seems that my interpretations ought to be preferred.

    Thank you for your fine critiques and questions. If you have anymore arguments or questions I would love to read them. I hope you have a great week.

    God Bless,

    NPT

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Nathanael, thanks for the response.

    Regarding the first issue,

    [i]The Mosaic law and the natural law can have overlapping laws as you mentioned. But the theonomic objection here is that other than the Mosaic law there is no other objective standard and therefore we are required to carry over the Mosaic law.[/i]

    I agree with you the premise is false; there are other objective standards aside from the Mosaic judicial laws. It was not my intention so much to defend the precise theonomic objection you addressed but to raise a similar one (one that I know some theonomists in fact have used). The theonomist can argue we must use the Mosaic judicial laws not this way, namely, by arguing we have no objective standard, but rather in this way, a way which allows that natural law is an objective standard, namely, that natural law cannot contradict the Mosaic judicial laws (for then God's own law he gave to Israel would violate his natural law). You have claimed we can use natural law to understand what laws the state should have (with respect to maintaining public morality and imposing sanctions for violations, I take it). Suppose the theonomist grants that claim and then argues this way:

    P1 - we should use natural law to set up the state's laws (your claim, I take it)
    P2 - the Mosaic laws for the state cannot contradict natural law for the state.
    Therefore, regardless of whether we consult the Bible or not, the laws we should attempt to have legislated for the state should include the Mosaic judicial laws. This seems valid to me. if the Mosaic law dictates that crime C should be sanctioned, and that C's comission should be punished with penalty P, then if natural law dictates either that C should not be sanctioned or that, if C is sanctioned, the penalty for its comission should not be P, then natural law contradicts the Mosaic law. I do not think this is a sound argument (I am not a theonomist), but I'm not sure how best to critique it.

    [i]The problem is we have clear indication that this is not the case [namely, that we are supposed to carry over the Mosaic law into the new covenant] (Heb. 8:13)[/i]

    But you yourself have provided the way the theonomist will attempt to circumvent this. In response to my 2nd objection you say:

    [i]The commandments that are in the Mosaic covenant that are in the New Covenant are necessary moral truths and so they would be in every covenant because God cannot command other than what is a reflection of his perfect nature.[/i]

    This is exactly what Bahnsen wrote about the judicial law; he thought it was a reflection of God's immutable moral character just as the "moral" law is. Since you believe (as you say in your response to my 2nd objection) that laws that are commanded in the Mosaic law are not necessarily abrogated with the fading away of the old covenant (for some of them reflect God's nature and are still normative), you do not believe that everything commanded in the old covenant ceases to be normative with the passing away of the old covenant. The theonomist can agree with you that the old covenant passed away with the new, but take issue as to which parts of the Mosaic law were meant to pass away and which ones were not. Hence I think this prooftext (in Hebrews) has to be buttressed by an explanation for why to include the judicial law in those aspects which passed away.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Regarding the second issue,

    [QUOTE]The New Testament repeats these all of the laws of the ten commandments except the sabbath day which is in fact abrogated in the new covenant:

    ...
    Commandment 2: 1 John 5:21
    Commandment 3: Rom. 2:24; 1 Tim 6:1[/QUOTE]

    I don't see how the verses cited constitute repetitions of these commandments. The 2nd commandment concerns more than worshipping idols (for this slips into the 1st commandment); it concerns the making of images (purporting to) represent God. And neither Rom. 2:24 or 1 Tim. 6:1 repeat the command not to take God's name in vain; but rather one refers to the Gentiles' blaspheming His name and the other tells slave to obey so that their masters do not malign His name.

    [QUOTE]These Moral truths can be known to us through reveal intuition (natural law) or by reading the pages of the New Testament. So by them being mentioned in the New Testament does not make them true rather it is just affirming what is already true in every covenant.[/QUOTE]

    Your claim, I believe, was that a law commanded in the Mosaic law is abrogated now unless it is re-commanded in the New Testament. Are you claiming that unless a Mosaic law is re-commanded in the new, we can infer that it is not normative anymore, or that natural law can inform us that some laws are normative even though not re-commanded in the New Testament?

    Regarding the 3rd issue (Rom. 6:14),

    [QUOTE]The problem with the condemnation of the Law interpretation is the Greek word nomos cannot mean lexically condemnation of the law. So to put that in as a gloss is lexically illegitimate.[/QUOTE]

    I did not mean to imply that I was taking the word 'nomos' to mean "condemnation of the law." Your argument was that this verse opposes theonomy because, in virtue of 'nomos' being appropriately interpreted as the Mosaic law, the verse is saying we are no longer under the Mosaic law (and hence, presumably, the Mosaic judicial law). But how can 'nomos' mean Mosaic law here? The Gentiles were never under the Mosaic law; so does this verse not apply to them (us)? The Mosaic covenant was only made with Israel. Further, even supposing 'nomos' denotes the Mosaic law here, you have already admitted that certain portions of the Mosaic law can still be normative; not, to be sure, in virtue of being Mosaic per se, but in virtue of pertaining to God's moral nature which is reflected in parts of the Mosaic law but remains normative after that law passes away.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hey Dan,

    Thanks for bringing up these interesting objections. I will respond to the first objection:

    I reject P2. The reason why I do is because the natural law (which is apprehended by reason) is used for non-geopolitical covenants likes the general covenant of works and all the Covenants of grace. In the circumstances of not being under a geopolitical we are then obligated to follow the natural law. But in the circumstance of being under a geopolitical covenant like the Mosaic covenant we are obligated in that circumstance to follow God's law as he reveals to us in the scripture. This does not contradict the natural law since our duties are different when certain circumstances change. Thus, when the Israelites were under the Mosaic covenant it was not as if what God was telling them contradicted the natural law, but rather that in that circumstance they had no idea if they should or should not do something according to the natural law, but that it was unclear and God had to reveal through scripture what they ought to do. This is similar to how the the duties about animal sacrifices changed from Mosaic to the New covenant, the reason why it changed is because the circumstances changed, This is what I am saying about the Judicial laws as well. I would further describe it like this:

    All non-geopolitical covenants: In these circumstances we follow the natural laws because it is clear to us that we should in these sorts of covenants.

    All geopolitical covenants: In these circumstances it is unclear that we should follow every single natural law, but certainly there are some natural laws in these circumstances that we should follow, but the unclear part God reveals what our duties are in that situation.

    I hope that is sufficiently clear, if there are any arguments or questions feel free to let me know.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The second issue:

    Well, it seems to me that if we are commanded not to worship idols in the New Testament that by inference making a idol so that people can worship them would also be a sin. And I think from the Jewish context of the New Testament when Paul speaks of Blaspheming the name of God that would incorporate many things one of which would be using God's name in vain which is a way from a Jewish perspective you blaspheme the name of God.

    And with respect to your question:

    I believe that natural law can inform us that some laws are normative even though not explicitly re-commanded in the New Testament (I would say that since natural law is taught in the NT we would know these laws implicitly by clear and necessary inference from the NT, I explain this on my third refutation of theonomy).

    ReplyDelete
  9. The third Objection:

    Scholars and Pastors alike see the church of Galatia as a Jew and Gentile church yet Paul talks about them not being under the Mosaic covenant all the time and how they should never be for that matter (Gal. 3;4:23-31). I would argue that Paul is doing something similar here. He is telling them that there is no need for the church of Rome who are composed of Jew and Gentle alike to either go back to the Moses or to go to Moses (in the case of the Gentiles). Part of the what was commanded in the Mosaic covenant is also commanded in the new covenant, but I am arguing that this passage suggests a presumed discontinuity between the Mosaic and the new covenant rather than the idea that every law in the Mosaic economy could never be normative in other circumstances. This principle, to be sure, is opposite of the theonomic thesis, which I intended this verse to be a refutation of that position.

    ReplyDelete