by Sam Waldron | Sep 29, 2022 | Theonomy?
*This series is a republication of lectures written by Dr. Waldron near the end of the 1980s. This is Part 5 of a series titled “Theonomy: A Reformed Baptist Assessment.”
For Part 1, you can click here: https://cbtseminary.org/theonomy-a-reformed-baptist-assessment-sam-waldron/
For Part 2, you can click here: https://cbtseminary.org/the-sources-of-theonomic-development-sam-waldron/
For Part 3, you can click here: https://cbtseminary.org/the-challenges-of-critiquing-theonomy-sam-waldron/
For Part 4, you can click here: https://cbtseminary.org/understanding-the-supposed-theocratic-kingdom-sam-waldron/
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)
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Dewey Dovel | Sep 27, 2022 | Church History, Practical Theology
In the year leading up to his death, Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) uttered one of the most memorable proverbs in United States history: “In this world, nothing is certain except death and taxes.”[1] Although intentionally reductionistic in nature, Franklin’s pithy statement encapsulates two common denominators for life in America. Every American citizen will experience death, and to some degree, every American citizen will be impacted by taxation. Yet for Christians living in America, and in every corner of the world, division in the local church is another experience that is immensely widespread. According to a 2017 study conducted by William D. Henard, roughly 250 pastors are either terminated or leave the ministry altogether on a monthly basis.[2] The most prominent contributing factor to this troubling statistic is unbridled controversy in the local church.[3]
Despite Scripture’s perpetual exhortations for believers to be unified (Ps. 133:1; 1 Cor. 1:10; Eph. 4:3), there are also many warnings about division being a recurring threat to the harmony of local church life (Rom. 16:17; 2 Thess. 3:6; Titus 3:9-11). In the subsequent centuries to the Apostolic era, Christians have sought to preserve unity and combat strife at all costs.[4] One such example from the Particular Baptist tradition is crystallized in The Glory of a True Church, a short book authored by Benjamin Keach (1640-1704) on biblical ecclesiology.[5] Keach’s motivation for writing this volume was rooted in a desire to provide “a small and plain tract concerning the rules of the discipline of a gospel church.”[6] Although Keach authored this work in the seventeenth century, his correctional insights about local church controversy are relevant to every generation of Christians. As such, the remainder of this article features what Keach deemed to be “common causes of discord [in a local church].”[7] For the sake of concision, and to avoid repetition, what follows is a 13-part summarization of Keach’s arguments along with brief supplemental commentary.[8]
May the reader be richly edified through the pastoral counsel offered by Benjamin Keach!
1. An Absence of Church Discipline
One cause of discord is through the ignorance in some members of the rules of discipline and right government (Matt. 18:15): particularly when that rule in Matthew 18 is not followed… To prevent this, the discipline of the church should be taught; and the members informed of their duties.[9]
According to Article 29 of the Belgic Confession, a true church will be marked by at least three distinctives: (1) the preaching of the Gospel; (2) the administration of the sacraments (i.e., baptism and the Lord’s Supper); (3) the administration of church discipline.[10] Although written a century before Keach’s time, and in an entirely different country, this portion of the Belgic Confession stands in lockstep agreement with Keach’s understanding of a God-exalting church. For Keach, perhaps the greatest cause for discord in a congregation is an absence of church discipline (Matt. 18:15-20; 1 Cor. 5:1-13).[11]
2. A Lack of Love Amongst Church Members
Another thing that causes trouble and disorder in a church is a lack of love and tender affections toward one another; as also not having a full sight and sense of the great evil of breaking the bonds of peace and unity (John 13:12; Eph. 4:3).[12]
Within the context of a letter designed to cultivate assurance of salvation, the Apostle John notified first century Christians that a mark of conversion was love for the brethren (1 John 3:14-15). The quality of love referred to by John is not merely defined by emotion or sentimentalism, but rather, it is shaped by the behavioral postures delineated in Paul’s famous “love chapter” (1 Cor. 13:4-7). Keach’s emphasis on the necessity for church members to love one another not only gets to the heart of safeguarding unity amongst fellow believers, but ultimately gets to the heart of Christianity itself (John 13:35).
3. The Concealment of Sin by Church Members
Another disorderly practice is this: when one member or another knows of some sinful act or evils done by one or more members, and they conceal it (Acts 5:3, 8); or do not act according to this rule—pretending they would not be looked upon as contentious persons (Lev. 19:17). However, hereby they may become guilty of other men’s sins, and also suffer the name of God and the church to lie under reproach, and all through their neglect. This is a great iniquity.[13]
Regardless of their motivation for doing so, it is a wicked practice for church members to conceal the sin of other church members. The New Testament expectation is for church members to graciously hold one another accountable to repent from sin when it is manifested in their midst (Eph. 5:11-13). One of the most unloving choices a church member can make is to allow their brother or sister to continue in sin (Prov. 27:6; Eph. 4:14-16). From Keach’s perspective, the person who conceals the sin of other people is likewise culpable in that sin.
4. Cowardice of Spiritual Leadership to Address Doctrinal and/or Moral Issues in the Congregation
[Another cause of discord is] when an elder or church knows that some persons are scandalous in their lives or heretical in judgment and yet shall bear or connive with them.[14]
Writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Apostle Paul provides the biblical qualifications for the office of Elder in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9. Upon surveying those passages, one finds that Elders are called to “hold fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict” (Titus 1:9). There is perhaps no occasion more important for Elders to function in this capacity than when doctrinal and moral issues surface in a local church. An Elder’s failure to carry out this biblical mandate is an unfortunate display of cowardice and spiritual negligence (Gal. 2:11-14; 2 Tim. 1:7-8).
5. A Lack of Involvement in, or Care for, Local Church Activities by the Majority of Members
When members take liberty to [be at] other places when the church is assembled to worship God (Acts 4:23): this is nothing less than a breaking their covenant with the church and may soon dissolve any church: for by the same rule, one may take that liberty; nay, every member may. Moreover, it casts a contempt upon the ministry of the church, and tends to cause such who are hearers to draw off and to be disaffected with the doctrine taught in the church. I exhort, therefore, in the name of Christ, that this may be prevented. And any of you that know who they are that take this liberty: pray discover them to the church.[15]
Consistent disengagement, or outright absence, from local church activities is a recipe for strife in the local church. In many cases, irregular attending church members depend on the rigorous labors of faithful members to ensure that church events can occur as desired. What’s more, if left unchecked, absentee church members can still influence the overarching direction and decision making of a local church (especially if they are wealthy or popular amongst congregants). Lest grave problems arise from such scenarios, contemporary Baptist churches would do well to heed Keach’s exhortations to hold absentee church members accountable (Heb. 10:23-25).
6. A Culture of Unsound Theology
The liberty that some take to hear men that are corrupt in their judgments; and so take in unsound notions, and also strive to distill them into the minds of others, as if they were of great importance. Alas, how many are corrupted in these days with Arminianism, Socinianism, and what not. This causes great trouble and disorder.[16]
Doctrine is the most important component of Christianity, because without knowing and understanding objective doctrinal truth, the entirety of the Christian faith is reduced to subjectivity and ambiguity (2 Tim. 1:13). Doctrine is also an inescapable component of Christianity because as soon as one begins to articulate what they believe about their faith, they have inevitably begun to reveal their personal doctrinal convictions (1 Pet. 3:15). Therefore, Keach’s counsel directs church members to ensure that the doctrine espoused in their congregation is faithful to Scripture, and is jointly embraced throughout the community of faith (1 Cor. 1:10).
7. A Lack of a Robust Church Membership Process
When one church shall receive a member or members of another congregation without their consent or knowledge: nay such that are disorderly and may be loose-livers, or cast out for immorality, or persons filled with prejudice without cause. This is enough to make men atheists, or condemn all church authority and religion: for has not one regular church as great authority from Christ as another (2 Pet. 2:2).[17]
In a world where roughly 2/3 of Americans believe that worshipping alone or with one’s family is a valid replacement for regularly attending church, it would be an understatement to say that ecclesiological confusion is widespread.[18] Based on Keach’s observations summarized under this heading, the lack of a formal church membership process opens the door for virtually anybody to become a member. In the final analysis, the lack of guardrails for church membership will inevitably undermine the orthodoxy and orthopraxy of local churches, which are chief concerns of the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8:6-13).
8. A Culture of Widespread Partiality in the Congregation
When judgment passes with partiality, some are connived at out of favor or affection.[19]
The sin of partiality can be defined as valuing or devaluing another person based on external factors.[20] Partiality can be shown toward those of a particular ethnicity, socio-economic status, family background, or role in the local church. Given partiality’s ubiquitous disapproval by secular society,[21] how much more should Christians seek to extinguish all expressions of partiality in their assembly of faith (James 2:1-13)? Keach’s concerns about congregational partiality stem from its inherently divisive nature; partiality augments extraneous differences rather than facilitating unity around every spiritual blessing enjoyed throughout the body of Christ (Eph. 2:11-22). Therefore, partiality must be mortified in the local church.
9. Churchwide Decisions Made Without Pastoral Oversight
[Another cause of discord in the local church occurs] when part of a church shall meet together as dissatisfied to consult church-matters, without the knowledge or consent of the church or pastor. This is disorderly, and tends to division; and such shall be marked (Rom. 16:17).[22]
There ought never be a scenario in which church-wide decision making occurs without the knowledge, oversight, and consent of spiritual leadership (i.e., the Elders). Moreover, when members have a desire to express concerns about their local church, the instruction of the New Testament should lead them to first seek pastoral counseling (1 Cor. 16:15-16; Heb. 13:17). There is no biblical basis for members to grumble about the church in secret meetings, especially at the exclusion of spiritual leadership (Acts 15:1-29). Such behavior is factious, and as noted by Keach, such behavior will yield strife in a congregation.
10. Unqualified Spiritual Leadership
Another thing that tends to disquiet the peace of the church is where there are any undue heat of spirit, or passion shown in the pastor, or others, in managing the discipline of the church. Have we not found by experience the sad effect of this? Therefore things must be always managed with coolness, sweetness of spirit, and moderation; every brother having liberty to speak his mind and not to be interrupted until he has done; nor above one speak at once (2 Tim. 2:25).[23]
In accordance with God’s infinite wisdom, the Holy Spirit led the Apostle Paul to provide definitive lists of qualifications for those who would serve in the offices of Elder (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9) and Deacon (1 Tim. 3:8-13). Thus, it is the joint duty of Elders, Deacons, and the congregation to ensure that the qualifications set forth in Scripture are being modeled by those presiding in God-appointed offices of church leadership (Gal. 6:1). Whereas Keach freely acknowledges how unruly members can lead to turmoil in the local church, he is equally clear in noting how unqualified spiritual leadership can wreak havoc on a community of faith (Acts 20:28-30).
11. Disclosing Private Church Matters to Non-Church Members
When any member shall divulge, or make known to persons not of the congregation, nor being concerned in those matters, what is done in church meetings…this oft times occasions great grief; and the disorderly person should be detected. Is it not a shame to any of a private family, to divulge the secrets of the family? But far greater shame do these expose themselves unto.[24]
From Keach’s vantage point, it is the responsibility of church members to protect the intimate details of congregational life. By virtue of dwelling in a fallen world, the danger of going outside the church walls with private information can open the door for unintentional misrepresentation at best, and gossip at worst (Matt. 15:18-20). As seen from the testimony of Scripture, and from the testimony of everyday life, few sins cause greater damage than false testimony (Prov. 25:18; Acts 6:11-15). Thus, inasmuch as it is possible to do so, Christians should be committed to keeping matters involving their local church “in house.”
12. A Culture of Indifference Toward the Spiritual Authority of Elders and Deacons
Another disorderly practice is this: when a member shall suggest, and seem to insinuate into the minds of other members some evil against their pastor, yet will not declare what it is; and may only be evil surmisings, and out of prejudice; and yet refuses to acquaint the pastor with what it is (Zech. 7:10; Rom. 1:29; 1 Tim. 5:19; 6:4). This is very abominable, and a palpable violation of the rule of the gospel, and duty of members to their minister. Such a person ought to be severely rebuked; and if he confess not his evils, and manifest unfeigned repentance, to be dealt with farther. Moreover, it is a great evil in another to hear such base insinuations, and neither rebuke the accuser—and so discharge his duty—or take two or three more to bring the person to repentance. If he deals thus by a private brother is a great evil, but far worse to an elder, whose name and honor ought with all care and justice to be kept up as being more sacred (1 Tim. 5:19).[25]
This twelfth “cause of discord” closely echoes what Keach stressed about church discipline (see above), but is distinguishable by its commentary on the specific culture of a congregation. Any local church that allows its spiritual leadership to be openly maligned or disrespected—without any fear of consequence—is a severely unhealthy community of faith. In fact, it is impossible for a local church to possess God’s favor if the congregation is not marked by a posture of revering and submitting to the spiritual leadership therein (1 Cor. 14:33, 40; 1 Thess. 5:12-13). As such, clergy and laity must diligently work together in order to prevent the strife that ensues from congregational indifference toward the authority of Elders and Deacons (1 Pet. 5:1-7).
13. A Lack of Intentionality to Train the Next Generation of Church Leaders
[Church discord will occur] when gifted brethren are not duly encouraged, first privately to exercise their gifts; and being in time approved, called forth to preach or exercise in the church. And when encouragement is not given to bestow learning also upon them, for their better accomplishment. What will become of the churches in time to come, if this be not prevented with speed?[26]
From the first century until the present, Elders of local churches have been entrusted with the privilege of identifying, training, and mentoring Godly men who would eventually serve in the office of Elder and/or Deacon (2 Tim. 2:2). The fulfillment of this commission requires Elders to be invested in the lives of younger men, in order that they will be equipped with sound doctrine and thoroughly vetted to determine if they meet the biblical qualifications for spiritual leadership (1 Tim. 5:22). As alluded to by Keach, it should come as no surprise to find repeated problems in a community of faith that is not intentional to raise up the next generation of leaders.
[1] “Benjamin Franklin’s Last Great Quote and the Constitution,” National Constitution Center, November 13, 2021, https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/benjamin-franklins-last-great-quote-and-the-constitution.
[2] William D. Henard, “Conflict in the Small and Medium-Sized Church,” Great Commission Research Journal 8, no. 2 (2017): pp. 223-239.
[3] Henard, “Conflict in the Small and Medium-Sized Church,” 224.
[4] Samuel Parkison, “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church,” Credo Magazine, October 23, 2018, https://credomag.com/article/one-holy-catholic-and-apostolic-church/?amp.
[5] Benjamin Keach, The Glory of a True Church (Conway, AR: Free Grace Press, 2015).
[6] Keach, The Glory of a True Church, 20.
[7] Keach, The Glory of a True Church, 57-65.
[8] Given the substance of chapter three in The Glory of a True Church, each distinct summarization takes into consideration all that Keach expounds in the 23 “common causes of discord” in the church. As indicated above, some of these points are repetitive and/or offer expanding thoughts on previous statements. Therefore, the reader is encouraged to compare these summarizations with the original content of Keach’s work on this subject.
[9] Keach, The Glory of a True Church, 57.
[10] “Article 29: Of the Marks of the True Church, and Wherein She Differs from the False Church,” Home (PRCA, March 18, 2013), http://www.prca.org/about/official-standards/creeds/three-forms-of-unity/belgic-confession/27-35/article-29.
[11] Keach reiterates the importance of church discipline for alleviating congregational discord in points 9 (pg. 60), 18 (pg. 64), 19 (pg. 64), and 20 (pg. 64) of The Glory of a True Church.
[12] Keach, The Glory of a True Church, 57-58. Keach reiterates the importance for believers to model self-sacrificial (Christlike) love toward one another in the context of the local church throughout point 14 (pg. 62).
[13] Keach, The Glory of a True Church, 58.
[14] Keach, The Glory of a True Church, 58.
[15] Keach, The Glory of a True Church, 59. Keach reiterates the importance of the involvement by church members throughout points 11 (pg. 61), 17 (pg. 63-64), 21 (pg. 65), and 22 (pg. 65).
[16] Keach, The Glory of a True Church, 59.
[17] Keach, The Glory of a True Church, 60. Keach reiterates the importance of congregations practicing a formal church membership process throughout point 8 (pg. 60).
[18] See statement 22 of “The State of Theology,” Ligonier Ministries, accessed September 21, 2022, https://thestateoftheology.com/.
[19] Keach, The Glory of a True Church, 60.
[20] “Partiality,” Partiality | Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary, accessed September 21, 2022, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/partiality.
[21] Erick Erickson, “Skin-Colored Idols in Education,” WORLD Magazine, August 22, 2022, https://wng.org/opinions/skin-colored-idols-in-education-1661170269.
[22] Keach, The Glory of a True Church, 61.
[23] Keach, The Glory of a True Church, 61.
[24] Keach, The Glory of a True Church, 62.
[25] Keach, The Glory of a True Church, 63.
[26] Keach, The Glory of a True Church, 65.
Dewey is a Licensed and Ordained minister in the Southern Baptist Convention. He was raised in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, and is happily married to the love of his life, Beall. Dewey played college baseball at Western Texas College, where he received the Associate of Arts degree in General Studies and at The Master’s University, where he received the Bachelor of Arts degree in Christian Ministries. After his collegiate baseball career, Dewey also went on to receive the Master of Arts degree in Biblical Studies from The Master’s University, and the Master of Theology degree in Historical Theology from Campbellsville University. Dewey is currently a doctoral student at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, with a degree emphasis in Christian Worldview and Apologetics. Moreover, Dewey is a contributor to several online journals and believes that his ministry calling is to help God’s people grow in their awareness of what they believe, why they believe what they believe and how to graciously share their faith with those God has placed in their life.
by Sam Waldron | Sep 22, 2022 | Apologetics, Systematic Theology, Theonomy?
*This series is a republication of lectures written by Dr. Waldron near the end of the 1980s. This is Part 4 of a series titled “Theonomy: A Reformed Baptist Assessment.”
For Part 1, you can click here: https://cbtseminary.org/theonomy-a-reformed-baptist-assessment-sam-waldron/
For Part 2, you can click here: https://cbtseminary.org/the-sources-of-theonomic-development-sam-waldron/
For Part 3, you can click here: https://cbtseminary.org/the-challenges-of-critiquing-theonomy-sam-waldron/
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
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Tom Nettles | Sep 20, 2022 | Systematic Theology
The Revelation of the Gospel A Revelation of God
Ephesians 3:8-12
Tom J. Nettles
Though the gospel is clearly defined in specific terms of ransom, redemption, substitution, forgiveness, justification, and reconciliation, its revelation of the wisdom of God, the riches of Christ, and the surpassing love of God can never exhaust the infinite reality of God’s glory. Thus, Paul wrote of preaching “the unfathomable riches of God.” When he preached the gospel, his knew that within it the endless unfolding of the infinite perfections of God would give that same gospel that he preached a heavenly relevance. Paul shows the irony of the gospel’s simplicity in relation to its unsurpassed excellence in writing to the church at Corinth: “For since in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through its wisdom, God was pleased through the apparent foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. … We are preaching Christ as having been crucified … to those who are called, both Jew and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than the greatest wisdom among men, and the weakness of God is stronger than the greatest strength among men” (1 Corinthians 1:21-25 my paraphrase).
This stewardship of preaching the unfathomable riches of Christ brings “to light” how God managed the mystery which had been hidden. It, the mystery, was hidden because it resides in God himself, in an eternal propensity of his nature to know and be known, infinitely manifest in his triune being. It was always known fully by God himself (what classical theologians call ad intra) but now will be made known (ad extra) in unending waves of revelation to other rational “knowers” that were created by God for that very purpose—to know him. They will never know him fully, for the finite never can experience exhaustively the infinite, but the revelation ad extra fully conforms to God’s purpose and character ad intra. Nothing has happened by accident or by a fortuitous concatenation of events. Rather, salvation history has happened according to “the rules of the house,” a regulated administration of God in the present fully conforming to eternal purpose. God set forth a plan with a definite purpose; it would unfold according to specific principles embedded within the triune God himself and consistent with the final purpose. In fact, God “created all things” with this particular unfolding of events and their revealed meaning set within himself by covenantal arrangement. This entire plan has that strange and tension-filled quality of expressing God’s radical freedom—a sovereign choice absolutely independent of any force or influence outside of himself—and yet in perfect conformity with the eternal “demands” of his own nature.
The “now” is an unfolding of eternity (10-12). This passage has elements within it that are inexhaustible in their signification and set the stage for Paul’s prayer in 3:14-19. I will use the sentence order as written by Paul.
We have mentioned “purpose” several times for that is the way Paul reports it. Paul’s preaching (8) in the process of bringing to light a mystery according to “house rules” was done with a peculiar purpose – hina in order that “It might be made known” – a plan already present in fullness of detail already known to God would be unfolded to men. That which is now being made known to men (and to angelic powers) already was known and complete to God. Its being made known does not differ from its eternal reality. It is necessarily done partitively but nevertheless truthfully, each part being consistent with the past revelation and serving as a foundation for future revelation.
“Now” – Paul affirms that his task of preaching revealed truth gives a maturity of understanding into God’s purpose in this present post resurrection age that had not been set forth before. The prophets testified to it but were held in mystery until Christ himself would come; even at the appearing of Christ much about his life and ministry were hidden until clarity would be given through his selected apostles. But “now” this revelation will give all that we can know or need to know until his glorious appearing. Peter gives an exposition of this truth in 1 Peter 1:10-12: “Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things which angels desire to look into” (NKJV). Angels have longed to look into the things that are unloaded in the gospel, so that NOW the rulers and authorities in heavenly places may see more of the sum of God’s attributes than had been present to their gaze before.
Paul and Peter see by revelation the same reality that angels see only in the gospel. Even angelic beings find the circumstance surrounding the gospel a matter of great expansion of knowledge and truth concerning the eternal purpose of God—“to the authorities and the powers in the heavenlies.” Though angels in all their variety of glory and designated power surround the throne and view the glory of God, they too are dependent on God’s revelation for their knowledge of the depths of God’s own being and internal relations that he has set forth in the gospel events and disclosed in words and propositions to his apostles.
When Paul says, “through the church,” he refers to the elect people of God who were saved and seated with Christ in heavenly places by his death, burial, and resurrection (Ephesians 1:20-2:7). Paul affirms that all that Christ has done in his redemptive work, underneath the affirmation that it is done that we might “be to the praise of his glory,” (1:12) is that he has done it “to the church which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all.” Because the operation of all three persons of the Trinity (1:3, 7, 13) manifested the divine glory and grace in their particular functions in the covenant of grace, and that this has been done specifically in relation to the church, then it is “through the church” that we grasp “the manifold wisdom of God.”
This word “manifold” means many colored, highly variegated, layer upon layer of nuanced beauty. We may look upon the “wisdom of God” as an attribute of God or we may see it as the sum of his attributes displayed in the consummation of redemption. Rational beings rejoice in God as he reveals himself in creation; rational beings marvel at the intricacies of God’s governing power as displayed in providence; rational beings have the superlative display of God’s good and holy perfections in the redemption of sinners, in which the purpose of creation and the perfection of providential control are brought into their brightest light. Though it is tempting to make the administrative operations of God external to his intrinsic attributes, passages like Ephesians 1 and Ephesians 3 give such a close alignment of economic outcome and revelation of internal attributes and interpersonal relations that it is hard not to deduce the ad intra relations of God from the ad extra operations. Especially when this is accomplished “according to his eternal purpose.” – The combination of these two phrases—manifold wisdom and eternal purpose—sows that the manifestation of God’s unending and inexhaustible wisdom is at the heart of his eternal purpose. A God without purpose is no god at all. His eternal purpose, therefore, sums up the dynamic end-oriented propensity of his internal relations. The word means to put a thing in place beforehand.
Paul used in Romans 8:28 explaining that all the events in the lives of those who love God, he works together for their good. They are “the called according to his purpose.” Of what does this purpose consist? God’s purpose is all inclusive as demonstrating the Father’s love for the Son and the exertion of the Spirit’s power in pursuit of this intratrinitarian love–to be loved in eternity, to be predestined to live eternally conformed to the likeness of his Son in order to his being the firstborn among many brethren, and on the basis of this predestination to be called by the work of the Spirit in conjunction with truth, and linked to this calling we find justification (the Father’s acceptance and pleasure in the righteousness of his Son), and linked to justification we find glorification (the conformity of those so loved and predestined to the perfection of the human nature of the incarnate Lord).
Paul used the blessing of Jacob over Esau as an example of sovereign election operating according to the purpose of God in Romans 9:11. God’s election of Jacob in eternity, apart from works either good or bad, was according to a governing purpose.
In Ephesians 1:7- 9 Paul explains that the riches of God’s grace are granted “in all wisdom and insight.” Whose wisdom and insight? God’s own wisdom and insight as if his saving grace is in itself the concrete manifestation of the unchangeable character and omniscience of God in eternity. Then Paul says that the “mystery” of God’s will has been made known as a matter of divine pleasure which, in eternity, he “set forth” (the verb form that expresses purpose) in Christ. The things that please God in eternity, the things that express his wisdom and insight, operate truly and as a matter of revelation in the economy of redemption.
In Ephesians 1:11, Paul again sees predestination to receive the benefits of Christ’s work as a matter emerging from the “purpose of him who effectually works all things according to the counsel of his will.” “Counsel” is used in Hebrews 6:17—“the unchangeableness of his counsel (or purpose).” This word implies agreement after thorough consultation. The divine purpose, therefore, arises from the perfect concord that exists in intratrinitarian expressions of love, wisdom, knowledge, and will.
We learn more of the precise character, immutable certainty, and interpersonal operation of God’s purpose in 2 Timothy 1:9. Note the order and arrangement of Paul’s encouragement to Timothy to be willing to suffer for the gospel.
God has saved us. This is a summation of God’s eternal intention toward his elect creatures. Toward this end, God consulted within himself.
In that salvation he has called us with a holy calling. This is the work of the Holy Spirit, called “in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction” in 1 Thessalonians 1: 5 and “sanctification of the Spirit” in 2 Thessalonians 2:13.
This is done not according to our works. Titus 3:5 adds, not by works of righteousness which we have done. God was influenced by nothing outside of himself in the bestowal of salvation.
Rather, this salvation comes according to his own purpose, even his grace. This salvation expresses the fullness of God’s grace in that it arises solely from divine purpose and employs all the means necessary for it to magnify the sum total of his eternal attributes from holiness and justice to mercy, patience, and lovingkindness.
This gracious purpose found perfect fulfillment in Christ Jesus. The eternal Son of God demonstrated in our nature the undefiled obedience to the moral law and the preceptive will of God in demonstration of how eternal filial love finds its joy and most natural expression in doing the will of the Father.
“Before the beginning chronological time” shows that these temporal expressions of saving grace, these present extensions of eternal purpose are the most robust, clearest, and expressive manifestation we have of God ad intra. That which he reveals himself to be in the economy of redemption he is within himself. God’s economy is a true revelation of his immanent being.
In summary: God’s purpose is an unchangeable manifestation of the perfect wisdom that operates within the godhead as an expression of the intrinsic unity and harmony of interpersonal relations within the Trinity. The salvation he gives to sinners in time in an external expression of grace and wisdom is in itself a revelation of the internal concord and pleasure existing eternally within God.
Dr. Tom Nettles is widely regarded as one of the foremost Baptist historians in America. He joined the faculty of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary after teaching at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School where he was professor of Church History and chairman of that department. Previously, he taught at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary. He received a B.A. from Mississippi College and an M.Div. and Ph.D. from Southwestern. In addition to writing numerous journal articles and scholarly papers, Dr. Nettles has authored or edited nine books including By His Grace and For His Glory, Baptists and the Bible, and Why I Am a Baptist.
Courses taught: Historical Theology of the Baptists, Historical Theology Overview, Jonathan Edwards & Andrew Fuller.
by Sam Waldron | Sep 15, 2022 | Systematic Theology, Theology Matters, Theonomy?
*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: https://cbtseminary.org/theonomy-a-reformed-baptist-assessment-sam-waldron/
For Part 2, you can click here: https://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
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
