Theonomy: A Critique

Photo Attribution: “Justice Gavel” by Tori Rector; CC 2.0

In the last post, we walked through some of the main tenets of Theonomy; in this post, I will seek to explore the larger hermeneutical principles behind these points, thus, further serving to distinguish what I believe to be a more proper view of the Law’s function in respect to the NT believer. Primarily, we will be examining the usage of “law” (nomos) in the NT, and looking at the text of Galatians 3:15-25 (along with Romans 7:1-6) in particular.

One of the fundamental presuppositions of a theonomist would be to nuance the understanding of the usage of “law” in the NT epistles. Many instances, these occurrences serve to illustrate their points in regard to the distinction between moral, ceremonial, and civil laws, thus further illustrating the NT believer’s need to submit to the civil and moral laws. Thus, while the moral law defines and declares the sin, the civil law issues forth fitting punishment to work seamlessly for the refinement of the individual and society.

While in principle this presents itself tidily, it seems to ignore a larger precedent, namely, that First century Jews viewed the law as a cohesive unit. This does not mean the interpreter views every single instance of the term “law” to refer to the broader meaning (Torah; Pentateuch); yet these nuances must be demonstrated from the context (take for example, the ceremonial part of the law is a prominent idea in the book of Hebrews). More importantly though, Douglas Moo notes that even Paul’s usage of “nomos” is more often used in the broader sense (specifically meaning the unified whole of the law rather than constituent parts). What this does mean then, is that the Mosaic Law, as a whole, presents aspects of the Lord’s unchanging nature, his holiness, and contains a moral dimension behind each law instituted.

As Moo further notes, “It is quite remarkable, if Bahnsen’s position is right, that Paul does not fill his letters with references to the OT law as a necessary foundation for teaching his new Gentile converts how they are to please God.”

Instead, we see that Paul offers a treatment on the place of the law, as a whole, in redemptive history. This is founded within a reading of Galatians 2:16-4:7 (see also Romans 4:15), though Bahnsen would place a restriction to Galatians 3:24-25 as a reference to the law’s ceremonial laws as a foreshadowing to Christ. Yet the question must be asked: if Bahnsen concludes that v. 19 speaks to the Law as a whole, as Moo notes he does, why then would vv. 24-25 indicate a shift in Paul’s thinking toward the ceremonial laws if not contextually represented and supported? Most plainly, this seems to be an assumed “shift” by Bahnsen on the basis on theonomic principles. However, some other scholars have also noted that these assumptions take place upon Paul’s usage of “law” more than one is led to see exegetically through careful consideration of the Greek.

So what then do we make of the Mosaic Law’s place if indeed this is an assumed shift rather than an exegetical one in this particular passage? Context would dictate that the Mosaic Law, as a whole, fulfilled the role of the tutor and we are no longer under it’s authority. Does this indicate that there is nothing left to learn from the tutor? Absolutely not – yet it naturally precludes the notion then that the Mosaic Law is still binding on NT believers – even if one splits them neatly into three camps.

This would further serve to illustrate the point in Romans 7:1-6 that we have died to the law in order to be joined to another: Christ. Paul then builds upon this framework to show that it was not the law, which caused sin, but revealed it. This fits neatly with the traditional Lutheran understanding of man’s plight before the Lord in condemnation (Paul has spent the previous 6 chapters building upon this theme; chaps. 1-3 exhibit man’s plight, the following 3 speak to the believer’s justification in Christ, subsequent freedom and life in Him, and death to the “old man” and his former, sinful opposition to God).

Fundamentally though, this does not invoke the law’s place among the people of Israel as one of unfair bondage. Instead, the law should be seen not as obligatory duty imposed by the Lord, but an extension of the covenantal relationship (D. Block, 123; The Gospel According to Moses). Israel’s primary commitment was not to Mosaic Law, but to the God who revealed these laws and called Israel out of bondage and into a covenant relationship. Thus, the law was not a precondition to salvation, but a precondition to Israel’s fulfillment as a “light among the Gentiles” and to the subsequent blessings found within obedience to the Palestinian covenant.

Furthermore, the Law served to indicate a gracious Lord who had given these laws in that same gracious character. The Law then served as a means of grace to specifically reveal what Israel was expected to do in lieu of God’s redemption – not as a means of that redemption, but a response to it. This is indicated by the Lord’s redemption of Israel from slavery in Egypt without conditionality; yet, these precedents (laws) were established on the basis of that redemption and continuance of the Palestinian covenant. Thus, in either case, whether to blessing or cursing, God’s glory was made manifest in judgment on the basis of these laws (whether casuistic or apodictic). In this, it is incredibly important to distinguish between the unilateral and bilateral covenants (Abrahamic and Palestinian, respectively) when we think of what these laws were in place for.

However, relegating this only to historical roots will not prove fully useful, as indeed, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” Primarily, these laws were instituted first and foremost to the Israelites on the basis of this covenant – however, this does not remove the admonition from Paul to young Timothy. Indeed, there is much yet to learn from the tutor. That is not the question at hand though.

As Douglas Moo notes, “No one doubts that the Mosaic law is ‘holy, righteous and good’ (Rom. 7:12); the question is what the function of that holy law is for the Christian.”