A Biblical Defense of Theonomy: Part 2

by Steve C. Halbrook

(posts in this series: part 1, part 2, part 3)

(This series is based on Appendix A of God is Just: A Defense of the Old Testament Civil Laws)

The Apostle Paul upheld aspects of the O.T. civil code in Ac. 23, when, after being struck by orders of the high priest, he says, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting to judge me according to the law, and yet contrary to the law you order me to be struck?” (v. 3b).  Paul is angered because the high priest’s violation of the O.T. civil code; in this case, the judicial case law against punishing someone before he is found guilty (Deut. 25:1, 2; Jn. 7:51). 

And, upon realizing that it was a high priest whom he called God’s judgment upon, Paul repents, due to the validity of Exodus 22:28, an O.T. case law that relates to the O.T. civil code:  ^“And Paul said, ‘I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, “You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people”’” (Ac. 23:5).   

And then in Acts 25, Paul, while on trial, recognizes the O.T. civil code’s capital sanctions in particular.  Paul states, ^“For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die” (v. 11a, KJV) (emphases mine).  The term “worthy of death” is also used in Deuteronomy 21:22 in regards to any capital sanction authorized by God (see KJV).  Moreover, the offenses Paul refers to as being worthy of death are offenses against the Jews, for in verse 10 Paul says during his trial, “To the Jews I have done no wrong …”  Thus, Paul affirms the O.T. civil code’s abiding validity, since the law of the Jews was the O.T. civil code, and Paul acknowledges that violating it is worthy of death, not unworthy of death, which would be the case if these sanctions no longer apply.[1]

If in the New Covenant era the O.T. civil code has been annulled, this would have been the perfect opportunity for the outspoken Apostle to denounce its capital sanctions as being murderous, and hence unlawful (just as John the Baptist denounced Herod’s immorality in Mark 6:18 as being unlawful).  Indeed, “Had Paul deemed capital punishment evil, he would not have urged its consideration.”[2] We must also note that the word “any” (in “any thing worthy of death”) implies a plurality of capital sanctions, not just one.  This refutes the view that says in the New Covenant era, only one capital sanction (for murder) is sanctioned.

Romans 1:28-32, speaking of the Gentiles who reject God, also uses the phrase “worthy of death”:

 ^“And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.”

On this text Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., writes:

the Greek word dikaioma, which Paul employs in the phrase “although they know the ordinance of God,” is properly translated: “regulation, requirement, commandment, statute.”  The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament calls such a rendering “the most common” sense of the word in the New Testament, as do Arndt-Gingrich, Abbott-Smith, and Thayer.  It is the very word mentioned by Paul just a few verses later as a stipulation from God’s Law: “Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements (dikaioma) of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?” (Rom. 2:26). It occurs again in Romans 8:4: “... that the righteous requirement (dikaioma) of the law might be fulfilled in us” (Rom. 8:4). In fact, it is frequently used of the specific requirements of God’s Law (Luke 1:6; Heb. 9:1; extra-biblical: Barnabas 4:11; 1 Clement 2:8; 35:7).

Thus, TDNT observes that in Romans 1:32, “the reference is to the knowledge of God’s statutes or ordinances which obtains among men.” [3]

Some argue that “worthy of death” in Romans  refers not to a capital sanction, but eternal condemnation, since the O.T. civil code doesn’t punish some of the sins mentioned, such as envy, insolence, unlovingness, and boastfulness.  However, Gentry argues that “‘such things’ in the statement ‘those who practice such things are worthy of death’” should not be viewed individualistically, but distributively. 

Paul’s main focus here is on idolatry. It is because of idolatry that God reprobates these men (Rom. 1:23-24; also note the specific reference to idolatry in the discussion of God’s Law in 2:17-23). Also, it is common in Scripture to associate wide-ranging immorality as a concomitant of idolatrous worship (cf. Lev. 18; Deut. 12:29-13:18; 18:9-14; Rom. 1:20ff).

Surely the idea impressed upon the readers is not that some idolaters are merely “whisperers” (Rom. 1:29). These sins are found clumped in idolatrous communities. And as a complex of moral behavior involving specific capital crimes (e.g., homosexual conduct, murder, etc.), these multiple sins/crimes merit capital sanctions. These people are “filled [Gk. perfect passive participle] with all unrighteousness” (Rom. 1:29) and are justly subject to capital sanctions, as they “know” (Rom. 1:32; cf. 2:14-16).[4]

Romans 12:19 and 13:1-10 includes statements we would expect if the O.T. civil laws are required today.  First, personal vengeance is prohibited: “Beloved, never avenge yourselves …” (Rom. 12:19a).  (Compare with Ex. 23:4, 5; Lev. 19:17-18).  Second, vengeance belongs to God:  “leave it [vengeance] to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord’” (Rom. 12:19b).  (Compare with Deut. 1:17; 2 Chron. 19:6). 

Third, civil rulers answer to God: “For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God” (Rom. 13:1b; cf. 13:2, 4, 6).  (Compare with 1 Sam. 12:14).  Fourth, civil rulers are granted the sword to kill the wicked:  “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” (Rom. 13:4b).  (Compare with the O.T. capital sanctions.)  That rulers do not bear the sword in vain demonstrates the state’s authority to kill.[5] 

Fifth, multiple capital sanctions are authorized.  Many hold that nations are only bound to the Noahic covenant, with its single death penalty for murder (Gen. 9:6), and so Romans 13 does not authorize additional capital sanctions of the law of Moses.  However, if this is the case, why doesn’t Rom. 13 specify that rulers wield the executing authority of the sword for murders?  Instead, rulers are granted authority to kill evildoers in general; the ruler is “an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer” (v. 4b).  Indeed, the text mentions a plurality of evil works subject to the terror of the sword of the state:  ^“For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil” (v. 3a) (KJV).  So there are several evil works subject to capital punishment.  (Compare with the plurality of O.T. capital sanctions). 

Sixth, the sword of civil rulers deters the wicked from committing evil: “For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad” (Rom. 13:3a; cf. Rom. 13:4).  (Compare with Deut. 13:11; 19:20; 21:21).  Seventh, the purpose of taxes are to maintain justice:  “Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing” (Rom. 13:5, 6).  (Compare with the O.T. civil code, which too is focused on justice instead of such things as socialism [cf. Heb. 2:2], which implies the main purpose of taxes in the O.T. was for justice as well.) 

Eighth, God’s law defines what constitutes punishable behavior (i.e., bad conduct): “For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad” (Rom. 13:3a; cf. 13:4; also consider 13:8-10).  (Compare with the O.T. civil code, which distinguishes which sins constitute crimes).[6] 

The only possible standard for measuring good and bad conduct in the civil realm is God’s law, since God’s law, by the very nature of the case, informs us of what is good and what is evil. 

Ninth, rulers are required to rule by biblical law.  This is seen in light of Romans 13:7, 8, which discusses what people owe one another, and Romans 13:8-10, which upholds God’s law.  Greg L. Bahnsen writes,

In Romans 13:7 “that which is due” has the same root as “to owe” in verse 8. Verse 7 says to render to each his due, and verse 8 says nothing is due to anyone except love—that is, the fulfilling of God’s law (v. 10). The conclusion should be that what is due to the state is obedience to God’s law, and if this is what is its due, then the law of God is the area of the state’s assigned function. What Caesar must render unto God as the things which are God’s includes his obedience to, and enforcement of, God’s law within the nation.[7]

Thus, civil rulers are indirectly obligated to enforce God’s civil law because citizens owe the state obedience to God’s law, which includes the civil aspects of God’s law.  Not only this, but since the command “Owe no one anything, except to love each other” applies to all men, it also applies directly to civil rulers, who love by enforcing biblical civil law. 

Indeed, “the fulfilling of the law” (v. 10) is equated with the command “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (v. 9)—a command which, along with the great commandment, Christ said “all the Law and the Prophets” depend on (Matt. 22:37-40).  Moreover, “the fulfilling of the law” (v. 10) is what Christ upholds in Matthew 5:17, a law which remains in force “until heaven and earth pass away” (Matt. 5:18b).  Here again, the Law and the Prophets are in view (Matt. 5:17).  The important point here is that the Law and the Prophets are still binding in the New Covenant era, and since the Law and the Prophets includes the O.T. civil code, the O.T. civil code remains binding in the New Covenant era as well. 

Tenth, the state’s authority is limited.  (Compare with the O.T. civil code, which only permits the state to punish certain sins.) 

The idea of rendering unto the state the things which are its due (e.g., honor and tribute) in Romans 13:7 has as its background the statement of Jesus to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matt. 22:21). This definitely implies a restriction of state authority within certain prescribed limits. Thus the state has a specifically assigned task.[8]

Some final words on Romans 13:  The text teaches that the civil magistrate is not granted autonomy as an avenger for his own wrath, but as a servant for God to execute God’s wrath (v. 4).  Judgment—wrath—belongs to God.  Man is forbidden to execute his own wrath (Deut. 1:17; 2 Chron. 19:6; cf. Prov. 29:26).  Right before Romans 13, we are told ^“Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord’” (Rom. 12:19). 

The O.T. civil law’s penal sanctions detail which sins the magistrate is to inflict God’s wrath upon, as well as how, and to what degree, God’s wrath should be inflicted upon those sins.  Only by consulting God can a ruler know that his punishments are just:  “I have counsel and sound wisdom; I have insight; I have strength.  By me kings reign, and rulers decree what is just; by me princes rule, and nobles, all who govern justly” (Prov. 8:14-16). 

When we reject the applicability of the O.T. civil laws, rulers are left without an objective basis for knowing whether their punishments reflect God’s wrath or man’s.  Man’s punishments can be extremely disproportionate; for example, petty thieves might have their hands dismembered, while murderers might get three-year prison sentences.

---

     [1] For a more thorough explanation of Acts 25’s relation to the O.T. civil code, see Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., “Civil Sanctions in the New Testament,” in Theonomy: An Informed Response, ed. Gary North (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1991), 157-160.

     [2] Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Random Thoughts on Capital Punishment (NiceneCouncil.com, 2008). Retrieved March 24, 2010, from http://nicenecouncil.com/media/display.pl?media_file=117.

     [3] Gentry, “Civil Sanctions in the New Testament,” 154, 155.  Citation from Gottlob Schrenk, “dikaioma,” in G. Kittel, The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 2:221.

     [4] Gentry, “Civil Sanctions in the New Testament,” 156, 157.

     [5] Some deny that the term “sword” here symbolizes the authority to take life.  However, swords are not intended for backrubs, but for cutting heads off with.  And Bahnsen writes, “The civil leader ‘does not bear the sword in vain’; this reference cannot possibly be restricted to lesser forms of punishment but expressly authorizes the most extreme penalty: death. The ‘sword’ properly symbolizes the death penalty (cf. for what the ‘sword’ represents: Matt. 26:52; Acts 12:2; Heb. 11:37; Rev. 13:10; Ulpian, Digest 1.18.6; Tacitus, Hist. 3.68; Dio Cassius 42.27).” Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics (Nacogdoches, TX: Covenant Media Press, 2002), 428.

     [6] However, if we reject the applicability of the O.T. civil laws today, we are left wondering just what sins constitute bad conduct in the civil realm.  As such any interpretation of Romans 13 that rejects the abiding validity of the O.T. civil code would allow for rulers to either arbitrarily pick and choose which sins to punish with the sword, or to strive to punish all sins with the sword.

     [7] Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics, 366, 367.

     [8] Ibid., 366. We address Matthew 22:21 in Appendix B.  

   

The Superiority of Biblical Civil Law to Natural Law

Due to sinful man's difficulty in discerning
natural law, when natural law is chosen over
biblical civil law, we are ultimately left to the
tyrannical whim of the philosopher kings who
will "discern" natural law for us.

by Steve C. Halbrook

(excerpt based on Appendix C of God is Just: A Defense of the Old Testament Civil Laws) 

Many Christians reject a form of civil government based on God’s written, special revelation for a form of civil government based solely on natural law, i.e., God’s revelation in conscience and nature.  However, besides the fact that the state is required to follow the civil laws as revealed in Scripture, when it comes to discerning God’s will, natural law is at best second best to special revelation. 

On the superiority of written to unwritten revelation, William Blackstone, author of Commentaries on the Laws of England, writes, “The revealed law is of infinitely more authority than what we generally call the natural law.  Because one is the law of nature, expressly declared to be by God himself; the other is only what, by the assistance of human reason, we imagine to be that law.”[1]

Gary DeMar, moreover, asks, “Should those who rule trust the fallen ‘light of reason’ or the Word of God that ‘is a lamp to my feet, and a light to my path’? (Ps. 119:105).”[2]  DeMar explains biblical law’s superiority to “principles of reason”:

First, the Bible has them all written in one place.  The “laws of nature” must be hunted down by finite, fallible, and fallen creatures.  While it is true that these same finite, fallible, and fallen creatures must interpret the Bible, at least the hunting process is taken care of.  The laws are there for all to see.  Second, the “principles of reason” are not specific enough.  The Bible is a detailed ethical blueprint.[3]

The Apostle Paul notes that the knowledge of sin comes through the written law (Rom. 7:7).  With this being the case, could we not say that because of the written law’s clarity there comes a better understanding of how to govern, of the proper size of the state, of what sins the state can criminalize, and of what penal sanctions are just, etc?  Indeed, we can.  This is implied in Leviticus 18, where God warned the Israelites not to engage in the sins that caused other nations to be vomited out of the land.  These nations had natural law; but God gave His chosen nation Israel written law. 

If natural law is clearer, then why did God bother giving His chosen nation written law—which included a civil code—instead?  And, if natural law is superior, why only after discovering the Book of the Law in the temple, did King Josiah realize his people’s national sins, and work for social reform (2 Ki. 22, 23)?  Indeed, so important was written law that is was absolutely necessary for Israel’s kings to daily immerse themselves in it in order to fear God, keep God’s commandments, and avoid arrogance and injustice:

And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the LORD his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them, that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left, so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel (Deut. 17:18-20).

Notice it doesn’t say rulers must meditate on natural law in order to fear God, keep God’s commandments, and avoid the arrogance and injustice that comes from one’s heart being lifted up above one’s people.  Natural law alone is insufficient for godly rule.  Moreover, as Moses told the Israelites:

See, I have taught you statutes and rules, as the LORD my God commanded me, that you should do them in the land that you are entering to take possession of it.  Keep them and do them, for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’ For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as the LORD our God is to us, whenever we call upon him? And what great nation is there, that has statutes and rules so righteous as all this law that I set before you today? (Deut. 4:5-8).

As the passage demonstrates, man benefits more from God’s written law than natural law.  Israel’s moral laws—including its civil code— are the model laws for all other nations to follow (“Keep them and do them, for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples”).  Israel’s laws were superior to the laws of the surrounding nations that only had natural law (“what great nation is there, that has statutes and rules so righteous as all this law that I set before you today?”). 

Regarding the preference for natural over written law in civil government, Greg Bahnsen writes:

This either amounts to preferring a sin-obscured edition of the same law of God or to denying the unity of natural and special revelation (and being willing to pit the one against the other).  Not only this, but in fact natural revelation is suppressed in unrighteousness by the sinner, and this should dissuade us from thinking that it can be the recognized, functional measure of his [the civil magistrate’s] ethical obligation.[4]

Indeed, if one were to suggest an antithesis between even some of natural and special revelation, he would have to find a biblical example.  Where does the Bible say or imply that one can find in natural revelation a contrary law to special revelation?  In fact, Romans 1 and 2—which treats natural revelation extensively—does not raise any laws contrary to those revealed in special revelation (see, for example, Rom. 1:26-32).

King Josiah tearing his clothes after learning of his people's
national sins. For Josiah, written law was superior to natural
law, for it was written law that convicted him of these sins.

William O. Einwechter points out that even prior to the Fall, man could not properly follow God without special revelation (Gen. 1:28-29; 2:16-17).  Natural revelation was an insufficient guide even when man was sinless and the creation was not under the curse.[5] 

If sinless man needed the Word of God and could not be guided solely by natural law, how much more must fallen man stand in need of the Word of God to teach him the knowledge of good and evil.  If natural law was insufficient before the fall, it is doubly inadequate now because man’s ability to discern natural law has been greatly affected by the fall.  First of all, the creation itself is now under the curse of sin (Gen. 3:17-19; Rom. 8:19-22).  Therefore, although creation still does witness of God’s glory and power (Ps. 19:1-6; Rom. 1:19-20), it can no longer serve as an infallible revelation of ethical standards.  Secondly, man is now a sinful and rebellious creature who seeks to suppress the truth of natural law in his unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18).  It is certainly true that “the work of the law” has been “written in their hearts” (Rom. 2:14-15), but man’s defiled conscience is absolutely not a trustworthy guide for discerning what is just, good, and right (Prov. 16:25; 1 Tim. 4:2; Titus 1:15; Heb. 9:14; 10:22).  Can we trust the conscience of fallen man whose “heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked” (Jer. 17:9) to be the final judge of what is good and evil?[6]

Indeed, while God’s natural law is not flawed, the hearts of men are:  “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot” (Rom. 8:7).  What natural, unconverted man does know of God, he suppresses (Rom. 1:18); he is unable to understand “the things of the Spirit of God” (1 Cor. 2:14). 

In short, man in his sinfulness exchanges natural law (Rom. 1:19-20) for unnatural lawlessness (Rom. 1:21-32).  And because the regenerate man still sins, he, too, often thinks like the natural man.  Moreover, and this is very significant, regenerate Christians themselves vary in what their consciences tolerate.  There are those with weaker consciences who cannot tolerate what those with stronger consciences can (1 Cor. 8:7-12, Rom. 14:2, 13, 14).

Thus when one takes the Bible out of the equation and defers only to natural law, he often can’t tell when biblical law ends and humanistic law begins. The most seemingly right laws in man’s eyes might be tyranny according to God’s law, for ^“Every way of a man is right in his own eyes …” (Prov. 21:2a). As such, rulers interested in upholding justice and opposing tyranny must be guided by special revelation.  Philosopher Gordon H. Clark writes,

It is instructive to note that political theorists who were untouched by the Christian revelation, almost without exception, advocate totalitarianism.  If Plato was a communist, Aristotle was a fascist.  Private parental education is forbidden because education has as its aim the production of citizens for the good of the state.  The number of children a family may have is controlled by the government, and surplus children are to be fed to the wolves.  And everybody must profess the state religion.  [Jean Jacques] Rousseau is equally totalitarian:  “There is therefore a purely civil profession of faith of which the Sovereign should fix the articles. … If anyone, after publicly recognizing these dogmas, behaves as if he does not believe them, let him be punished by death.” [7]

When those who hold to the Bible’s civil code criticize natural law as not being a sufficient guide for civil government, the reply by natural law proponents might be that critics of natural law just don’t understand natural law.  But of course, this undermines their very position; for if natural law can’t be understood, then how can it be a sufficient guide for civil government?

(above: Jean Jacques Rousseu)
Gordon H. Clark writes: "It is instructive to note
that political theorists who were untouched by
the Christian revelation, almost without
exception, advocate totalitarianism. If Plato was
a communist, Aristotle was a fascist. ...
Rousseau is equally totalitarian: 'There is
therefore a purely civil profession of faith
of which the Sovereign should fix the articles
... If anyone, after publicly recognizing these
dogmas, behaves as if he does not believe
them, let him be punished by death.'"

Moreover, if natural law sufficiently reveals a detailed ethical blueprint for civil government, has anyone discovered it yet?  By blueprint we mean, for example, what particular sins the state should punish, and in what way those sins should be punished?  Yes, there are particular commonsense things we know a magistrate should punish, such as murder and theft (although it may not be so clear how murder and theft should be punished).  But a few particulars here and there are much different than a detailed ethical blueprint.  (But then again, nations that reject special revelation as the standard of law can’t even get laws against murder and theft right.  Consider, for example, all the civil governments that promote abortion and socialism.)

If it is the case, as the natural law theologian says, that civil rulers are only obligated to uphold natural law, then he is under the burden of proof to tell us which laws in the Bible’s civil code are unnatural.  This shouldn’t be hard for him, since if we can clearly discern all natural laws, then we can equally clearly discern all unnatural laws.  Maybe some laws in the Bible’s civil code are natural?  If so, rulers would be required to enforce those particular laws. 

But then, do we really believe that any two natural law theologians can sit down and honestly discern from nature the naturalness of the exact same civil laws from the Bible?  On the other hand, if all of the Bible’s civil laws are not natural, then that would mean rulers sin when they adhere to separation of church and state (2 Chron. 19:11), forbid the kidnapping of people for slavery (Ex. 21:16), uphold the principle of innocent until proven guilty (Deut. 19:15), uphold the principle of impartial judgment (Lev. 19:15), exact punishments proportionate to the crime (Ex. 21:23-25), and even, God forbid, acknowledge God (1 Sam. 12:14).

Even as a believer, I still cannot discern via nature a detailed ethical blueprint for civil government—and a general ethical blueprint can even be hard enough to discern.  Whether the problem is that what remains of my sinful nature suppresses a naturally-revealed civil code, or nature is not specific enough, or whatever—if I haven’t discovered civil government blueprints in nature at this stage of my life, I don’t believe others have discovered it either. 

A quick way to test the intellectual honesty of someone who says natural law alone is sufficient for civil government is to simply ask, “Have you discovered a civil code in nature?”  If intellectually honest, he would answer “no.”  Then ask him by what standard he really determines what civil code the state should hold to. 

His only choice besides the Bible’s civil code is to arbitrarily determine a civil code on his own authority (and be his own self-appointed philosopher king), and/or to appeal to the authority of others (and have his own, appointed philosopher kings).  Regarding the latter, it might be contemporary politicians or judges, or it might be any number of political philosophers—Plato, Aristotle, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Russell Kirk, Adam Smith, Karl Marx, John Rawls, etc. 

But whether his standard of authority is himself or others, he has chosen the traditions of men as his standard, and consequently has adopted a humanistic view of the state.  Hence, to theoretically adopt a natural law-only ethic of the state is to in practice default into a lawless humanistic ethic of the state. 

Thus a society that adopts a natural law only ethic culminates in tyranny.  This might come about in a couple different ways.  The first possibility is that everyone will ultimately determine law for themselves, which would mean citizens and magistrates alike would lack any consistent, dependable standard for law.  Justice would be subjective, not objective, and with no objective standard of liberty, there would be no reliable discernment of—and hence safeguard against—tyranny.  Moreover, where everyone determines law for themselves, there are countless views of law.  With countless views of law comes countless laws, and with countless laws comes tyranny. 

The second possibility is that citizens would get frustrated with not being able to discern a civil code in nature and demand philosopher kings à la Plato’s Republic who can figure out natural revelation for them.  The only major difference is that tyranny would come from an elite which would take advantage of the citizenry’s ethical ignorance and impose whatever laws serves its interests. 

Thus, in matters of the state the only way to properly serve Jesus Christ is to hold to the civil code in the Bible, the basis of civil liberty.  We either then find liberty under the King of Kings, or tyranny under the philosopher kings.  

Excerpt from God is Just: A Defense of the Old Testament Civil Laws: Biblical Theocracy, Justice, and Slavery versus Humanistic Theocracy, "Justice," and Slavery by Steve C. Halbrook.  Copyright © 2011 by Steve C. Halbrook.  

---

     [1] William Blackstone, “Of Laws in General,” in Commentaries on the Laws of England (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979). Cited in Charles W. Dunn and J. David Woodard, The Conservative Tradition in America (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1996), 122.

     [2] Gary DeMar, The Debate Over Christian Reconstruction (Atlanta, GA: American Vision, 1988), 27.

     [3] Ibid., 29. 

     [4] Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics (Nacogdoches, TX: Covenant Media Press, 2002), 387, 388.

     [5] William O. Einwechter, Ethics and God’s Law: An Introduction to Theonomy (Mill Hall, PA: Preston/Speed Publications, 1995), 21.

     [6] Ibid., 21, 22.

     [7] Gordon H. Clark, Essays on Ethics and Politics (Jefferson, MD: The Trinity Foundation, 1992), 158.

   

Anti-Theonomy Objections: "Spiritual Weapons are antithetical to Old Testament Civil Law"

While David himself employed spiritual weapons in order
to slay Goliath, this didn't preclude the use of physical
weapons.

by Steve C. Halbrook

(excerpt from Appendix B of God is Just: A Defense of the Old Testament Civil Laws)

part of our "anti-theonomy objections" series

Some argue that Christians cannot advocate the enforcement of Old Testament civil law via the sword of the state because Christians are to only advocate spiritual weapons, not physical weapons.

  

First, such a view contradicts Romans 13:1-7, which requires rulers to enforce God’s law with the physical sword.   

Second, indeed, if one’s concern is for spiritual weapons, then one should insist on the enforcement of O.T. civil law, since the Bible says “For we know that the law is spiritual …” (Romans 7:14a).  Since the law is spiritual, even the Bible’s capital sanctions—which require the use of physical weapons—are ultimately spiritual weapons. 

  

Thus when rulers enforce God’s law, they are not ultimately only employing physical weapons, but are carrying out God’s wrath (Rom. 13:4; Deut. 1:17).  But when God’s law is rejected, rulers employ nothing but physical weapons (in a sinful manner, we might add). Ironically then, those who reject O. T. civil law find themselves advocating the sinful use of non-spiritual weapons via civil government.

Third, if one thinks physical weapons are always antithetical to Christianity, then one has a hard time explaining Hebrews 11:32-34:   

And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets:  Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions.  Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens (KJV).

 On this John Weaver comments: 

How does one subdue kingdoms?  The Word of God tells us it is “through faith.”  Yet, faith does not negate the use of weapons.  Evidently our fathers used their weapons in faith.  How do we know?  Because God said they were “valiant in fight,” they “escaped the edge of the sword,” and they “turned to flight the armies of the enemies.”[1]

Fourth, let’s not forget David, who slew Goliath using a sling.  Prior to killing Goliath, David proclaimed an antithesis between physical weapons and God, the source of spiritual weapons: “You come to me with a sword and with a spear and with a javelin, but I come to you in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied” (1 Sam. 17:45b).

Did David mean that God’s people are not to employ physical weapons?  Obviously not.  It’s just that David didn’t put his faith in his weapon.  God was the determining reason for David’s victory.  However, David’s weapon was still a means for slaying Goliath. 

Similarly, Psalm 44:3, speaking of the Israelite conquest of the promised land, reads, “for not by their own sword did they win the land, nor did their own arm save them, but your right hand and your arm, and the light of your face, for you delighted in them.”  Here again, there is no denial that the Israelites did in fact employ the sword; it’s just that God, not the sword, was the determining force of their victory.

Fifth, if weapons cannot be employed in any context, then not only would civil government be inherently sinful (since it relies on the power of the sword), but so would just warfare and defending others. It would be sinful, for instance, to protect a child from being tortured. Such a view is absurd, wicked, and must be rejected.

Excerpt from the (Lord willing) upcoming book, God is Just: A Defense of the Old Testament Civil Laws: Biblical Theocracy, Justice, and Slavery versus Humanistic Theocracy, "Justice," and Slavery by Steve C. Halbrook.  Copyright © 2010 by Steve C. Halbrook.  Based on the master's thesis, God is Just: A Defense of the Old Testament Civil Laws

---

     [1] John Weaver, The Christian and Civil Government (Fitzgerald, GA: Ovid Need, 2006), 146, 147.
    

Biblical Stoning: "Barbarism," or Righteous Punishment?

Public stoning contrasts with the genocidal state that would
commit private executions behind closed doors or in far
away concentration camps. Need we look further than the
private twentieth-century genocides?

by Steve C. Halbrook

(Excerpt from Chapter 23 of God is Just: A Defense of the Old Testament Civil Laws)

Stoning (as a punishment by the state for crimes worthy of death) is an act almost universally despised today.  Gary North writes:    

What we find in our day is that Christians despise biblical law almost as much as secular humanists do. … The very idea of execution by public stoning embarrasses Christians, despite the fact that public stoning is by far the most covenantally valid form of execution, for God’s law requires the witnesses to cast the first stones, and it also requires representatives of the entire covenantal community to participate directly, rather than hiding the act in a sanitary room in some distant prison.  The Bible is clear:  “The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people.  So thou shalt put the evil away from among you” (Deut. 17:7).[1]

While some may misunderstand biblical stoning to be an indiscriminate act of mob violence, Jean Kellaway, in The History of Torture and Execution, says this regarding stoning in ancient Israel:  “There is a danger in viewing historic laws with modern attitudes, heightened by the risk of mistranslation and misinterpretation.  In defense of ancient Israel’s laws, it should be stressed that the courts demanded overwhelming levels of proof before pronouncing the death penalty.”[2] 

The incredulous statement, "You want to
go back to stoning?!" is premised on a silly,
superstitious evolutionary assumption.

Not only this, but capital crimes are offenses against the entire community, since such crimes can bring God’s judgment on it.  Therefore, stoning is a logical method of execution, since it—unlike most other execution methods—is carried out by members of the community. 

Stoning carried out biblically is attacked for being primitive and barbaric. But the argument that such stoning is primitive is based on a humanistic, evolutionary assumption—an assumption implied in the incredulous objection, “You want to go back to stoning?!”  It is an evolutionary assumption in either a moral or technological sense. 

It is an evolutionary assumption in a moral sense in that it assumes man has morally evolved to the point that the death penalty is now immoral—especially in such painful death penalties as stoning.  It is an evolutionary assumption in a technological sense in that in our evolutionary mindset, we tend to relate basic elements such as stones to so-called primitive caveman times.  Only “primates” resort to basic elements when they could instead make use of great technological achievements developed over the course of evolution.  So in the case of capital punishment, methods should conform to technological innovation.

Neither of these assumptions are rational.  The assumption from moral evolution cannot object to stoning in the past, since according to the moral evolutionary philosophy itself, past stonings were moral acts by the standards of natural selection at that point in time.  And the assumption from moral evolution cannot object to stoning in the present, since an always changing, evolutionary law lacks any objective moral basis for judging stoning to be wrong at the present time.  And who’s to say that sometime in the future, stones might be morally okay to use again?  Evolution might reveal that stones were really okay to use all along—we were just not evolved enough in our thoughts to see it.

Regarding the argument from technological evolution, we must ask that, in regards to state-sanctioned executions, why prefer sophisticated technology over basic technology?  Technology has given the state such methods of “efficient” mass killings as gas chambers and nuclear missiles.  It has also given the state brutal methods of killing through the use of biological and chemical weapons, as well as doctors brutal methods of infanticide from within the womb.

We are not without stoning in our day, but
have replaced the biblically prescribed
method of stoning with "technologically
advanced stones" in everything from death
penalties to total warfare.

And, it must be further noted that technology has not replaced stoning, but only given us a different form of it, and on a much wider scale.  While the biblically prescribed method of using natural stones against convicted criminals is no longer used, we now use “technologically advanced stones” in everything from death penalties to total warfare.  Hurling stones with the hand has been replaced by hurling stones (bullets) through the barrel of a rifle, or by hurling boulders (bombs) from cannons and airplanes.  (This, by the way, “shows the madness of our times: we drop nuclear bombs on others, and attack stoning.”[3])

One of the great blessings of biblical law is that it does not hand the state carte blanche over life and death.  This is especially the case with biblical stoning.  When one is convicted in a court of law of a crime punishable by stoning, the public carries out the execution.  (Hence the balance of powers in executions: the state authorizes, the people execute: no pretrial mob violence, no secret state-sanctioned gas chambers and mass graves.)  Mitigating the state’s power to take life mitigates the state’s power to take life arbitrarily; execution by the public reminds the state that its trade isn’t primarily in death, but in justice.  And, stoning carried out by the community deters the state from creating a professional class of bloodthirsty executioners.[4]

Public stoning contrasts with the genocidal state that would commit private executions behind closed doors or in far away concentration camps.  Need we look further than the private twentieth century genocides?  Gulag survivor Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, for example, writes of Communist Russia’s custom of “hiding executions in cellars under cover of night and of shooting the victims in the back of the head.”[5]  Former Hitler-youth and German soldier Hilmar von Campe writes that “most Germans did not know of the Holocaust until after the war.”[6]

Stoning also reminds society of the seriousness of state-sanctioned executions.  Unless a society is so depraved that it enjoys watching deaths—at which point it would be on the road to collapse anyway—the public and participatory nature of stoning teaches society to not be indifferent to state-sanctioned deaths.  We need look no further at the human tendency to condone deaths committed out of sight than abortion. 

Stoning people to death was part of the mob
violence during the secular humanistic
French Revolution.

Abortion is easy for many to accept because they cannot see what happens to the unborn child—out of sight, out of mind.  So public stoning can help keep society from easily tolerating unjust capital punishments.  Further, public stoning deters criminal acts.   People—particularly participants in the stoning—see firsthand what could happen to them should they commit a capital crime.

Public stoning has an important sobering effect.  Not only does it remind citizens of the death they could face for committing heinous crimes, but it reminds them of God’s final judgment.  As Gary North writes, “Public stoning forces citizens to face the reality of the ultimate civil sanction, execution, which in turn points to God’s ultimate sanction at judgment day.” [7] 

Every instance of public stoning then reminds unsaved citizens to repent and turn to Christ, else they will suffer an eternal death penalty much worse than stoning.  But not only does public stoning remind citizens of eternal damnation, but of the inevitable victory God’s people will have over evil and death itself, due to Jesus Christ.  Again, North: “Stoning … faithfully images the promised judgment against Satan: the crushing of his head by the promised Seed (Gen. 3:15).”[8]

Because of the public nature of stoning, those sentenced to death are able to address the public prior to their execution.[9]  Thus in cases where the Bible’s strict due process is followed[10] and yet an innocent man is nevertheless stoned to death, that man can publicly proclaim his innocence and even indict those responsible for his unjust death.  The impact such an outcry can have on the community can pressure the state to be very cautious in whom it sentences to death, and can deter future malicious witnesses.

Stoning wasn’t unique to Israel.  Humanists who decry stoning sanctioned by biblical law conveniently ignore stoning carried out by other ancient civilizations.  Consider Greece:

The Pharmakoi—persons considered worthless by Greek communities—were kept in Athens and other cities at public expense and used as sacrifices for annual events.  “In Athens one of these was celebrated in the middle of summer, when two men were led out and stoned to death as scapegoats for the wrongs of others.  If one of these Pharmakoi were to be killed, he would first be paraded around the city, in order that he should drain off the impurities of others and take them upon himself; he was then slain in a ceremony in which the whole population took part.”  That was in the city which is hailed above all others as the birthplace of democracy.[11]

This incident, carried out in Athens—the darling of democratic humanists—is democratic humanism taken to its logical conclusion.  These stoning victims did not commit any crimes but the majority nevertheless singled them out as inferior and worthy of death.  This is the logical and inevitable outcome of rejecting God’s will for the will of the people.  Stoning in Athens cannot be compared with stoning in biblical law because Athens sanctioned stoning of the innocent, while biblical law sanctions stoning for those guilty of criminal offenses (as determined by God) proven in a court of law under the testimony of at least two credible witnesses.  Athens was a depraved society on the road to collapse, while the Christian theocracy is sustained by a godly—albeit imperfect—society. 

This "shows the madness of our times: we drop
nuclear bombs on others, and attack stoning."
--Daniel Ritchie

One might think that the real problem of secular humanists with stoning is not stoning itself, but with stoning sanctioned by the Bible.  Strangely, secular humanists appear to have no problem with certain modern-day stoning riots.  And when mobs of Palestinians attack Israel’s military with stones, a “barbaric tactic” becomes “heroic.”  Whether or not Palestinians ever successfully stone a superiorly-armed Israeli soldier to death is beside the point; stoning is stoning.  And do we really think there would be a secular humanist outcry if an Israeli soldier was actually stoned to death?  Perhaps instead they would consider the assailants to be heroes. 

Secular humanists have historically employed stoning; the difference between biblical law and secular humanists is that biblical law only permits lawful stoning, while secular humanists prefer unlawful stoning.  For instance, mob violence in support of the French Revolution included the stoning of people to death.[12]  The early secret police for the Soviet Union, the Cheka, also stoned to death some of their victims.[13]  One tactic by Soviets was to use a piece of rock to dash out the brains of those who survived being shot.[14]

Should an abortion procedure ever be invented that is comparable to stoning—say, if a doctor injects the womb with a lethal chemical that, with a similar velocity to thrown stones, attacks the unborn child from several directions simultaneously until the child dies—would the secular humanist condemn this?  Of course not—he would adamantly defend this procedure as another liberating breakthrough for “womens’ rights.” 

Excerpt from the (Lord willing) upcoming book, God is Just: A Defense of the Old Testament Civil Laws: Biblical Theocracy, Justice, and Slavery versus Humanistic Theocracy, "Justice," and Slavery by Steve C. Halbrook.  Copyright © 2010 by Steve C. Halbrook.  Based on the master's thesis, God is Just: A Defense of the Old Testament Civil Laws

---

     [1] Gary North, Victim’s Rights: The Biblical View of Civil Justice (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990), 273.    

     [2] Jean Kellaway, The History of Torture and Execution: From Early Civilization through Medieval Times to the Present (London: Mercury Books, 2003), 17.

     [3] Daniel F.N. Ritchie, e-mail message to author, June 9, 2010.  

     [4] As Gary North puts it, “The Bible does not allow the establishment of a professional, taxpayer-financed guild of faceless executioners who, over time, inevitably either grow callous and impersonal toward their awful (full of awe) task, or else grow sadistic.”  Gary North, Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990), 45.

     [5] Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago:1918-1956: An Experiment in Literary Investigation, Thomas P. Whitney, trans. (New York, NY: Harper & Row, Publishers Inc., 1973, 1974), 300.

     [6] Hilmar von Campe, How Was It Possible? The Story of a Hitler Youth and a Vital Analysis for Today’s Times (Top Executive Media, 2006), 36.

     [7] North, Tools of Dominion, 44.

     [8] Ibid.

     [9] Ibid., 45.

     [10] Conviction can only be on the testimony of 2-3 witnesses, and witnesses themselves are threatened with the same punishment as those they testify against should they be found to bear false witness (Deut. 19:16-19).  Hence those who are false witnesses in a trial where the accused, if found guilty, would be stoned will themselves be stoned if exposed.

     [11] Otto Scott, “The Great Christian Revolution: Part One,” The Journal of Christian Reconstruction, ed. R.J. Rushdoony, vol. 13, no. 2 (1994): 5.  Scott cites Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. 6, 848.

     [12] See Joseph J. Ellis, American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson (New York: Vintage Books, 1998), 130 and Frank McLynn, Napoleon: A Biography (NY: Arcade Publishing, 2002), 56.

     [13]  Sergey Petrovich Melgounov, The Red Terror in Russia (Westport, CT: Hyperion Press, Inc., 1975), 178. 

     [14] Ibid., 78.