by Sam Waldron | Oct 27, 2022 | Apologetics, Systematic Theology, Theology Matters
*This series is a republication of lectures written by Dr. Waldron near the end of the 1980s. This is Part 9 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/
For Part 5, you can click here: https://cbtseminary.org/the-historical-background-of-theonomic-ethics-sam-waldron/
For Part 6, you can click here: https://cbtseminary.org/a-biblical-refutation-of-theonomic-ethics-sam-waldron/
For Part 7, you can click here: https://cbtseminary.org/a-reformed-alternative-to-theonomic-ethics-sam-waldron/
For Part 8, you can click here: https://cbtseminary.org/what-is-theonomic-postmillennialism-sam-waldron/
Theonomy: A Reformed Baptist Assessment
Theonomic Postmillennialism Critiqued | Sam Waldron
The insuperable difficulty which the Bible poses for Theonomic Postmillenialism has already been suggested by our study of the redemptive history of the Theocratic Kingdom. We have seen that the Theocratic Kingdom does not return visibly, externally, or politically till the return of Jesus Christ. Until that momentous event, the kingdom is primarily spiritual in character and finds its only external manifestation in the church, an ecclesiastical, rather than a civil, institution. Integral to the present situation is, then, the reality that the people of God are aliens in the present world system. They live surrounded by the consequences of the curse of God which destroyed the old Theocratic Kingdom. They live under the power of the fallible and sometimes hostile Gentile kingdoms. This is the present spiritual location of the people of God; and according to the teaching of the Bible this will be the spiritual location of the people of God till the return of Christ.
This redemptive-historical situation creates the strongest presumption against any form of Postmillenialism. The baggage of Postmillenialism, its predictions of political supremacy, economic prosperity, and cultural victory for the people of God, will not fit through the narrow gate which leads to life. This general perspective suggested by our study of the Theocratic Kingdom must now be given specific focus through addressing five issues relevant to Theonomic Postmillenialism.
I. The Two-Age Structure of Biblical Eschatology
The terminology, “this age and the age to come,” was in all probability developed by Jewish Scribes of the Inter-testamental period in order to give systematic structure to their view of Old Testament Prophecy. They noticed that again and again the present order of sin and distress was contrasted with a future order variously described as the era of Israel’s redemption, the age of salvation, or the Kingdom of God. This contrast they described by means of the distinction between this age and the age to come.
Its earliest usage in the extant evidence is, however, by Jesus. Clearly, Jesus and after Him His Apostles adopted this terminology and thereby sealed it with the divine imprimatur as the correct scheme of Old Testament Prophecy. This terminology or parts of it are used 18 times in the New Testament. Parallel phraseology adds many more occurrences to this list. This terminology is, therefore, pervasive in the New Testament and structural to its eschatological perspective.
The key word in this terminology is the Greek word áéùv. It combines the two ideas, age and world. That is to say, it is at one and the same time both a spatial and temporal designation (Gal. 1:4; Lk. 20:35). This in itself is intensely significant. For by using the phrase, “the age to come,” of the eternal state the Bible clearly designates it as a temporal and spatial existence.
Gary North repeatedly avails himself of the phraseology, “in time and on earth,” to speak of and insist upon the coming of millennial blessing in this age.[1] Though one does not need to assume that North believes that the eternal state is a non-time and non-earth existence purely on the basis of his repeated usage of this phraseology, nonetheless it is symptomatic of a tendency among postmillennialists to refuse to allow the eternal state to count with reference to the fulfillment of the dominion mandate or the coming of kingdom blessings. More shall be said about this later, but let it suffice to say here that spatial and temporal existence in the New and Redeemed Earth does count in the Bible for the fulfillment of the dominion mandate and the historical culmination of God’s Kingdom. We agree with North that we need an eschatology of victory in time and on earth.[2] This, however, does not mean that we need Postmillennialism.
Four statements must be made about the distinction between this age and the age to come if its polemic value against Postmillenialism is to be appreciated.
(1) This age and the age to come taken together exhaust all time, including the endless time of the eternal state. (Mt. 12:32, cf. Mk. 3:29; 10:30, parallel, Lk. 18:30, I Tim. 6:17-19).
This statement teaches us that the two ages, “this age and the age to come” originated at the beginning of human history and exhaust all periods of human existence to all eternity. If the two ages exhaust all possible time, there is no possibility of a state intermediate between them. There is no period of human history before “this age.” There is no period between “this age and the age to come.” There is no period after “the age to come.” It is eternal. Vos confirms this.
We have already seen that the distinction between “this age” and “the age to come” lies in the line of successiveness. Where, and as soon as, the one ceases, the other begins, or at least is at the point of beginning. The very name “coming aion” is not merely expressive of futurity, but also carries within itself the element of direct successiveness.[3]
(2) This age and the age to come are qualitatively different states of human existence and qualitatively different periods in the history of the world.
This age does not evolve through natural or gradual process into the age to come. The difference is that between the natural and the supernatural order. The crucial passage here is Luke 20:27-40. What are the differences between this age and the age to come according to this passage?
This Age
- Marriage and giving in marriage.
- Death and dying.
- Natural men.
- Sons of the devil and righteous co-exist.
The Age to Come
- No marriage or giving in marriage.
- No death or dying.
- Resurrected men.
- Only sons of God exist in that age and in a resurrected state.
(3) This age and the age to come are divided by the second coming of Christ which ends this age and inaugurates the age to come.
Luke 20:35 teaches that attaining to that age is equivalent to attaining to the resurrection of the dead. The resurrection is the door out of this age, and into the age to come. When does the resurrection occur? It occurs according to the pervasive teaching of the New Testament at Christ’s return (1 Cor. 15:22, 23; 1 Cor. 15:50-55; 1 Thes. 4:16). Matthew 13:39-43 refers to the same event as Lk. 20:35. They are clearly a reference to the second coming of Christ. Mark 10:30 asserts that in the age to come we receive eternal life. This occurs at Christ’s second coming (Mt. 25:31 with vs. 46.). Titus 2:12 clearly implies that the second coming consummates this age and brings in the age to come in its fullness (Mt. 28:20).
John 6:39 says, “And this is the will of him who sent me, that of all that he has given me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.” On the basis of the scriptural evidence we have now examined we may assert that the last day of this age is the day of Christ’s second coming and it is the first day of the age to come. Thus, we come again to the conclusion that there is no period between this age and the age to come.
One point of application is appropriate here. Biblical eschatology involves an emphatic supernaturalism. There is no evolution into the age to come. No naturalistic or materialistic explanation for the glory that shall be revealed. Furthermore, no spiritual progression brings in the consummate Kingdom of God.
(4) This age is and always will be an evil age.
In Luke 16:8 evil men are called the sons of this age and contrasted with the sons of light. In Mark 10:30 and Luke 18:30 we learn that those who have left all for Christ can always expect persecutions in this age. As long as this age lasts persecution will be the lot of true Christians. In Romans 12:2 Paul exhorts Christians not to be conformed to this age. How could Paul have used such language if he did not believe that this age will always be an evil age? In 2 Cor. 4:4 Satan is identified as the god of this age. It is therefore necessarily evil. In Galatians 1:4 Paul calls this age a present, evil age. In Ephesians 2:2 Paul describes the former, wicked lives of Ephesians believers as walking according to the age of this world.
Such passages as these presuppose and assume that this present age is, and always will be, evil. If this were not the case, there might come a day when the persecution of Christians would cease, when it would not be wrong to be conformed to this age, when Satan would not be its god, when Paul’s description of it as evil would cease to be true, and when one could walk according to the age of this world and be righteous. All this defies the plain implications and presuppositions of these passages.
All of this, of course, has direct application to any form of postmillennialism, but it also has specific application to Theonomic postmillennialism. No Postmillenialist has yet shown, no Postmillenialist of any brand‑-theonomic or otherwise‑-can show how the golden age they expect at the end of this age is consistent with these plain assertions of the Bible.
II. The Two-stage Coming of God’s Kingdom
Properly understood, no more complete or clear teaching on the coming of the kingdom occurs in the New Testament than that of the seven parables of the kingdom found in Matthew 13. It is peculiarly appropriate that we should examine these parables since Gary North makes them the subject of extended comment in Unconditional Surrender.
The theme of these parables is pervasively present in Matthew 13. It is the Kingdom, or more precisely, the coming of the Kingdom. Cf. verses 11, 16, 17, 19, 24, 31, 32, 44, 45, 52. There are four things we must notice in these parables.
(1) Their Common Emphasis
The common emphasis of these parables flows from the fact that they all address the same problem or question. This question flowed out of the historical situation in which Jesus and his disciples found themselves. The Jews in general conceived of the coming of the Kingdom as a glorious deliverance from all their troubles. Political and temporal victory would be its results (John 6:15; Acts 5:35-39). Even those Jews with a more spiritual expectation like that of John the Baptist viewed its coming as equivalent to the judgment of the wicked with irresistible might (Mt. 3:2-12). In such a context, Jesus came preaching the nearness and then the actual coming of the Kingdom (Mt. 4:17; 12:28, 29). A man like John the Baptist gladly embraced Jesus as the one who would usher in the glorious and irresistible coming of the Kingdom. But when Jesus continued to preach and even preach the actual presence of the Kingdom (Mt. 12:28f) without the onset of the glorious consummation, John the Baptist with such preconceptions began to have doubts (Matt. 11:2-6, 11). Verse 11 of Matthew 13 refers to knowledge of the mysteries of the Kingdom. If a man like John would struggle with the seeming inconsistency of Jesus’ preaching of the Kingdom with what the Old Testament itself had led the Jews to expect (Dan. 2:44), Jesus’ disciples would not be immune to the same doubts. The question was: How could the all-conquering, glorious eschatological Kingdom of God be present in the former carpenter turned itinerant preacher and his Galilean followers? Compare Ladd:
The Sitz im Leben of the parable is Jesus’ announcement that the Kingdom of God had come among men. The Jews thought that the coming of the Kingdom would mean the exercise of God’s mighty power before which no man could stand. The Kingdom of God would batter the godless nations (Dan. 2:44). The dominion of wicked rulers would be destroyed and the Kingdom be given to the saints of the Most High, that all nations should serve and obey them (Dan. 7:27). In apparent disagreement with the Old Testament promises, which were elaborated in great detail in the contemporary apocalyptic expectations, Jesus said that the Kingdom had indeed come upon men, but not for the purpose of shattering evil. It is now attended by no apocalyptic display of irresistible power.[4]
The common emphasis of these parables is that the Kingdom has come and is present, but that this is inseparably related to its future, glorious consummation. It is present in its initial phase, in other words, in a form mostly unexpected by the Jews.
(2) Their Specific Emphases
Each of the parables picks up this common emphasis and elaborates it in its own peculiar fashion.
The Parable of the Four Soils teaches that the Kingdom of heaven is present in the sowing of the Word of God. The emphasis is elaborated in two directions. First, the presence of the Kingdom is consistent with the rejection of the Word and its consequent fruitlessness in the lives of some who hear it. Ladd remarks,
Rather, the Kingdom in its present working is like a farmer sowing seed. It does not sweep away the wicked. In fact, the word in which the Kingdom is proclaimed may lie like seed on the roadside and never take root; or it may be superficially received only to die; or it may be choked by the cares of the age, which is hostile to the Kingdom of God.[5]
If the Kingdom is present as sowing, such fruitlessness is to be expected. Even the best seed does not always bear fruit.
The second direction in which this emphasis is elaborated vindicates the identity of the seed as kingdom seed. The presence of the Kingdom is vindicated by the amazing fruitfulness of the Word in those who receive it. They do bear fruit thrity, sixty, and a hundredfold.
The Parable of the Tares elaborates what was implicit in the Parable of the four Soils. 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 was to the Jewish mind, good and evil men will co-exist in the world in the time of the Kingdom. 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. 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.[6]
The Parable of the Dragnet is almost, if not completely, synonymous with that of the Tares. Not only in agriculture, but also in fishing, two distinct phases occur. First, there is gathering, then there is separating. Until the time of separation, good and bad co-exist together.
The Parables of the Treasure and the Pearl provide two related emphases. First, Jesus intimates that the Kingdom is present in a hidden and unexpected form. Note the reference in v. 44 to the “treasure hidden in the field” and in v. 45 to “finding one pearl”. Second, Jesus declares that in order to possess the Kingdom there will be the need of total sacrifice. To a Jew with ideas of a glorious, earthly kingdom, possessing the Kingdom meant glory, riches, fame, and honor. Jesus says a flat “no” to that idea. Possessing the Kingdom would rather mean the total sacrifice of this world’s possessions.
The Parables of the Mustard Seed and Leaven emphasize again that the Kingdom comes in two phases. More especially, Jesus is affirming that the present, apparent insignificance of he himself and his followers is no bar to their being the present manifestation of that Kingdom which would one day attain supreme dominance. Jesus’ answer is first the seed, then the tree. First the absurdly small bit of leaven in over a bushel of meal and then the whole leavened. Ladd says,
The burning question faced by Jesus’ disciples was how the Kingdom of God could actually be present in such an insignificant movement as that embodied in his ministry. The Jews expected the Kingdom to be like a great tree under which nations would find shelter. They could not understand how one could talk about the Kingdom apart from such an all-encompassing manifestation of God’s rule. How could the coming glorious Kingdom have anything to do with the poor little band of Jesus’ disciples? Rejected by the religious leaders, welcomed by tax collectors and sinners, Jesus looked more like a deluded dreamer than the bearer of the Kingdom of God.[7]
Jesus answer is, first the tiny seed, later the large tree. The smallness and relative insignificance of what is happening in his ministry does not exclude the secret presence of the very Kingdom of God.
The parallel with the parables of the tares and dragnet shows that the ultimate triumph in view is that of the age to come, the consummate Kingdom. It is not the golden age of the Post-millennialists.
While rejecting the post-millennial interpretation of these parables, the question of whether Jesus is here emphasizing the growth of the Kingdom must still be answered. In other words, Jesus’ primary stress is on the beginning and the end, but does he also stress the middle period, the growth of the Kingdom? Ladd rejects this idea of process.[8]
We believe that it is present.[9] The idea of a process of growth does not, however, demand Postmillenialism. There may be progress without Postmillenialism. The framework of seed-time and harvest illustrates the idea of a process of maturation. It is noteworthy, however, that such a process of maturation by itself would never bring harvest. There must be the direct intervention of the harvester.
(3) Their Comprehensive Teaching
Taken together these parables give us a comprehensive view of the Kingdom. With respect to the prospects of the Kingdom during this age, both pessimism and unalloyed optimism must be rejected. A realistic optimism is, however, warranted by these parables. Growth and progress will occur, but not such growth or progress as will supersede the problems which confronted the early followers of Jesus and their faith. For many, the word will continue fruitless. Good and evil will continue to co-exist in the world and in the community created by the Kingdom. Sacrifice will always be the order of the day for those who would possess the Kingdom. Yet, in many, the word will cause extraordinary and fruitful effects and over-all growth will continue.
(4) Their Present Relevance
North–to do justice to him–does emphasize the idea of historical continuity contained in these parables. He rejects any Premillennial and by implication any Postmillennial disruption of the historical continuity which these parables teach will obtain until the absolute consummation.[10] He, of course, also emphasizes the growth of the Kingdom as it is set forth in the parables of the mustard seed and the leaven. It is, however, at this point that North’s treatment becomes imbalanced. The fact is that two other ideas are taught very clearly in these parables. One is the continuance of evil in the present phase of the Kingdom with its concomitant impact on the Kingdom, i.e. widespread fruitlessness in the preaching of the Word, persecution and the necessity of sacrifice in this age. This is the special emphasis of the parable of the tares, but it is the implication of several of the other parables. This growth of evil in this age is also the explicit teaching of other passages in the NT (2 Thes. 2:7, 8; 2 Tim. 3:1, 12, 13; Rev. 20:7-9). It is when North negates these realities by distorting the emphasis on growth in the parables of the kingdom that he departs from the analogy of Scripture. This distortion and departure becomes evident in the following passages in Unconditional Surrender.
Satan’s kingdom is being conquered by the gospel, not by the sheer force of God’s angelic host. The terms of surrender are ethical. The offer of salvation is not being made to Satan’s angelic host, but to his earthly troops. Christians are steadily seeing the defeat of Satan’s human forces, for Satan suffers continual defections. As the power of the gospel increases its zone of sovereign mastery, even more will defect. He will have only the remnants of any army when the final trumpet sounds. He will be trying to hold the fort in the last outpost. And the gates of hell shall not prevail. . . .
Seventh, the treaty of peace is extended to all areas of those cultures that surrender to God unconditionally. The whole of society must be put under dominion. Societies can rule under God’s sovereign authority, as Israel was called to do, or they can become tributaries to God’s conquering kingdom, as the nations far from Israel were expected to do (Deuteronomy 20:10-11), or else they are to be destroyed (Deuteronomy 20:12-15). There is no “King’s X,” no escape hatch. . . .[11]
Theonomists like North and Rushdoony refuse to accept the Biblical paradox of the parallel growth of good and evil in the present age. Their dialectic sees only two alternatives: “pessimillennialism” or postmillennialism, optimism or pessimism. It is because of this artificial dichotomy that Rushdoony repeatedly lumps amillennialism with the most pessimistic forms of premillennialism.[12] While it is true that some forms of amillennialism do tend to be quite pessimistic, there is an alternative to the alternating pessimism and optimism of chiliastic expectations. It is the optimistic realism of Biblical amillennialism.
There are perhaps two reasons why Theonomists have failed to understand or embrace the Biblical paradox of the parallel growth of good and evil in the present age. The first is that they have equated the kingdom of God with the whole of society. While it is true that the gospel does have ripple effects on society, it is wrong to equate the kingdom of God with any institution except the visible church. The concentration of Theonomy on the economic, social, cultural, and political ramifications of the Word of God is symptomatic of their depreciation of the visible church.
The second reason why Theonomists have failed to embrace this paradox is rejection of the biblical logic which it embodies. There is a theological logic behind the parallel growth of good and evil in the present age. Simply stated, it is this. Biblically, both good and evil are capable of maturation individually, corporately, and historically. Evil matures as it rejects light and is progressively hardened. Good matures as it progressively recognizes and rejects evil. It is in the very interaction of light and darkness that this maturing process takes place. In a certain sense it is the very growth of good, the more brilliant shining of light, which is responsible for driving historical evil to its wicked consummation.
III. The Single Focus of the Christian Hope
It is beyond dispute that the practical effect of Theonomic rhetoric is to fix the attention and expectation of Christians upon the Christianized world of postmillennialism in order to motivate Christians to cultural labor to that great goal. In Rushdoony’s The Meaning of Postmillennialism: God’s Plan for Victory everything conspires to fasten the Christian’s labors and hopes on this millennial blessing. To North’s credit, in Unconditional Surrender he seeks to be more balanced. Alongside of the millennial world, he repeatedly stresses the consummate state.
Fifteenth, God creates the final version of the new heaven and new earth, wherein grows the tree of eternal life (Revelation 22:2). Men now have access to it. No longer is it in Eden, with a flaming sword to keep men from gaining access to it on the basis of their own works and power (Genesis 3:24). He demonstrates that His down payment on this final dwelling place had been wholly reliable.[13]
Even this quotation, however, shows the practical dualism of the Theonomic hope.
It is the contention of this assessment of Theonomy that there is something profoundly amiss in such dualistic expectations. For as the NT interprets OT prophecy and as it repeatedly stresses the hope of the Christian, one can only speak of that hope as having a single focus. Whatever expectations there may be for this age are merely anticipations of the age to come and the overwhelmingly dominant focus is on the age to come.
This is perhaps most evident if one does a simple word study on hope in the NT. When hope is thought of as an objective goal, (and not as a grace or internal attitude) the single focus is upon the age to come. Its central focus is the resurrection of the body, Acts 23:6, 7; Acts 24:15, 26:6-8, 1 Cor. 15:19-22, 1 Thes. 4:13-16. Its broader context is the redeemed earth, Rom. 8:18-25. Its present location is heaven, 1 Pet. 1:3, 4; Col. 1:5, where it is stored securely until Christ brings it to us in His glorious return, Phil. 3:20, 21; Col. 3:1-3, 1 Pet. 1:13. Its future revelation comes by the personal agency of Jesus Christ at His second coming, 1 Peter 1:13, 1 Thes. 4:13-5:3, Rom. 8:20-25, Tit. 2:11-13, 1 Jn. 3:2,3. Its various descriptions all underscore its connection with the second coming and the resurrection. It is glory, Rom. 5:2, 8:21, 2 Cor. 3:12, Col. 1:27, eternal life, 1 Tim. 6:17-19, Tit. 1:2, 3:7, open justification, Gal. 5:5, 2 Tim. 4:8, perfected image-bearing, I Jn. 3:2, salvation, 1 Thes. 5:8, 9, Christ 1 Thes. 2:19, 5:10, Tit. 2:13, and grace, 1 Pet. 1:13, Jude 21. There are passages where the word, hope, is given a temporal application, Phil. 1:20, 1 Tim. 5:5, Rom. 4:17-21, 2 Cor. 1:8-10. There is no fear, however, that millennial blessings will be found in these passage
When the hope of Theonomy is compared to the hope of the NT, the contrast is stark. Without asserting or desiring to assert that the Christian has no hope to see the gospel advance, the church built, and even ripples of righteousness spread through society, there simply is no question in the NT that all such hopes are distinctly and vastly secondary and subordinate to “the blessed hope.”
Perhaps the classicus locus of the Christian hope is found in Rom. 8:18-25 which contains Paul’s famous statement that “we have been saved in hope.” (Rom. 8;24). This passage warrants closer examination because it connects the Christian hope to the subject of the lifting of the curse. This is significant because Gary North also connects his hope with the lifting of the curse.
Eleventh, the kingdom of God becomes truly worldwide in scope. This involves the beginning of the restoration of the cursed world. The curse will then be lifted progressively by God. One result is longer life spans for man. This is a down payment on the paradise to come after the final judgment. God says: “For, behold I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind” (Isaiah 65:17). But this process of creation is part of history, to be concluded by the final conflagration. It has preliminary visibility, in time and one earth. How do we know this? Because of verse 20, one of the crucial teachings in the Bible concerning God’s preliminary blessings: “There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being a hundred years old shall be accursed.” Isaiah 65:20 therefore points to a time before the final judgment, when people still die and sinners still operate, but which resembles the long life spans of these who lived before Noah’s Flood. This passage cannot possibly be referring to the world beyond the final judgment, yet it points to external blessings, namely, long life, that do not exist in our wold. These words cannot legitimately be “spiritualized.” They refer to life on earth. They refer to a specific blessing on earth. It is a blessing that is a down payment on paradise, a testimony of God that He can deliver this fallen cursed world. This testimony, however, is not based on a radical break with the processes of history, but is instead a testimony that stems from the steady expansion of God’s kingdom. This is continuity in history, and there is also progress in external affairs. This is not some hypothetical internal kingdom, but a visible kingdom of flesh and blood.[14]
The language of North is clear. At a future point when the kingdom has become worldwide, then God will begin to progressively lift the curse. This is interesting. Though North, as we have seen, is theoretically committed to the idea of historical continuity till the consummation of the age, here he speaks of an event not taking place at present, the lifting of the curse on this world, which can only be described as having the quality of redemptive discontinuity. The only qualitatively different lifting of the curse which the Bible views as yet future is that described in Rom. 8:18f. There it is clearly associated and coincident with “the glory that is to be revealed” (v. l8), “the revealing of the sons of God” (v. l9), “creation itself being set free into the glory of the children of God” (v. 21), and “our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body (v. 25).
Clearly, it is difficult to keep postmillennialism tidily within the bounds of the historical continuity taught in the Bible!
IV. The Correct Interpretation of Isa. 65:17-25
North in asserting that the curse is lifted prior to the Second Coming of Christ cites Isa. 65:17-25. This passage is arguably the classic locus of postmillennialism. There are three considerations which are conclusive against the post-millennial and Theonomic interpretation of this passage.
- It ignores the NT interpretation of this prophecy.
No interpretation which fails to begin with an appreciation for the necessity of interpreting the Old Testament after the analogy set in the NT is safe. This is especially so when the NT itself repeatedly asserts the comparative dimness and shadow-like character of the Old Testament and its prophecy. (Cf. Heb. 1:1, 2, 10:1, 1 Pet. 1:10-12.) It, therefore, may not be ignored or even treated as irrelevant when the NT repeatedly interprets the language of this passage as referring to the eternal state. The mention of a new heaven, new earth, and new Jerusalem in Isa. 65:17, 18 are used of the consummate and eternal condition of God’s kingdom in 2 Pet. 3:1-13 and Rev. 21:1, 2. The cessation of “weeping and the sound of crying” is unknown in the NT until Christ ushers in the eternal state. Then echoes of this language reverberate in Rev. 21:4. The perfect termination of evil and the harm it causes in God’s holy mountain is fulfilled only in the new earth and the new Jerusalem where nothing unclean enters and there is no more curse, Rev. 21:27, 22:3. It may be safely asserted that NT never applies the language of Isa. 65:17-25 to millennial blessings.
- It is unable to do justice to key elements of this prophecy.
Is it really the case, we would inquire of the postmillennialists, that you expect in your millennium a condition which is “forever” (Isa. 65:18), in which “there will no longer be heard in her the voice of weeping and the sound of crying” (Isa. 65:19), and in which “the wolf and the lamb shall graze together and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; and dust shall be the serpent’s food. They shall do no evil or harm in all My holy mountain” (Isa. 65:25), and all this, furthermore, understood not in a spiritual sense, but in the very literal sense advocated by North? Theonomic postmillennialists, at least, advocate no such millennium, we are glad to say, but by that very fact they are not consistent or coherent in their interpretation of Isa. 65.
- It forgets the Old Testament character of this passage.
It is a recognized principle of the interpretation of Old Testament prophecy among Reformed commentators that in the Old Testament the blessings of the age of resurrection were much less clearly revealed and were often spoken of in terms familiar to Old Testament Israel.[15] So here in Isaiah 65 the blessings of eternal life are held out under the shadow of extended longevity of earthly life and blessing as we know it in this age.
V. The Practical Significance of the Dominion Mandate
From the previous quotations of North and Rushdoony, it is clear that they would charge the eschatological stance outlined in this section as discouraging Christian men from diligent labor to apply the law of God in the world and to advance the righteousness of the kingdom. In other words, it takes the heart out of men for fulfilling the “dominion mandate.”
The issue now confronted is a difficult and vexed one. Reactionary views, like Carl McIntire’s denial of the creation mandate must be avoided.[16] There is a dominion mandate and it is relevant in the present age. With John Murray we find it impossible to see how any Biblical and Reformed Christian can evade this responsibility. Murray writes,
By the term, The Christian World Order, I take it that what is meant is a world order that in all its aspects and spheres is Christian, an order so conformed to the principals of Christianity, and so pervaded by the forces that are operative in Christianity, that the whole of life will be brought into willing captivity to the obedience of Christ. . . .
Our dilemma would seem to be indeed perplexing. If we have to wait for the supernatural forces that Christ’s advent will bring in its train before the order of absolute right and holiness will be ushered in, is there any sense in speaking of a Christian world order except as an eschatological hope? Particularly and most practically, is there good sense in working towards the establishment of a Christian order when we know that, in the completeness of its conception, it is not attainable in what we generally call this life?
We must be bold to say that the Christian revelation does not allow us to do anything less than to formulate and work towards a Christian world order in the life that we now live. It is not difficult to demonstrate the validity and even necessity of this thesis.
The standard of thought and the rule of conduct for us are divine obligation. The rule and standard for us are the irreducible claims and demands of the divine sovereignty, and these irreducible claims are that the sovereignty of God and of his Christ be recognized and applied in the whole range of life, of interest, of vocation and of activity. That is just saying that the demands of the divine sovereignty make it impossible for us to evade the obligation to strive with all our heart and soul and strength and mind for the establishment of an order that will bring to realization all the demands of God’s majesty, supremacy and kingship. And this, in a word, is simply the full fruition of the kingdom of God, wherever we are, and in the whole compass of thought, word and action.
But, since we have fallen, and since the only way now whereby the claims of the divine sovereignty can even begin to be realized within the compass of our responsibilities is through the redemptive and mediatorial work of Christ, then there rests upon us, with like universal and unrelaxed stringency, the obligation to bring to bear upon the whole compass of life the supernatural and redemptive forces that are inherent in the Christian redemption and revelation. And this is just saying that the ideal and goal imposed upon us by the kingship and kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is nothing less than Christian world order. To recede from this conception and aim is to abandon what is impled in the prayer Christ taught his disciples to pray, ‘Thy kingdom come, They will be done in earth, as it is in heaven’ (Matt. 6:10). And it is to renounce what is overtly expressed in the words of the apostle, ‘For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mightily through God to the pulling down of strongholds;) casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ’ (2 Cor. 10:3-5).[17]
Let it be duly noted that the eschatology assumed and advocated in this assessment of Theonomy warrants the expectation of a measure of success in this age in fulfilling the dominion mandate. Christian achievements may be partial and will certainly be transitory in this present, evil age, but they are not less admirable–but more!–for all that.
Something more must be said, however. Rushdoony remarks,
The kind of faith we have governs the whole of our lives, and our total outlook. How we view God and Christ will determine how we view ourselves, our calling, and the end times. Our view of the end, of eschatology, depends to a large measure on our view of the beginning, and of all history, and on our doctrine of God and salvation. Theology is a seamless garment, and a man’s views of the end times is inseparable from his view of God. If he changes his mind on the one, he changes his mind on the other.[18]
With this view of theology we certainly agree. Thus, we cannot help but conclude that Theonomic postmillennialism must produce a skewed and imbalanced view of the Christian’s relative responsibilities in the world. There is visible in their writings a depreciation of “soul-saving” and the church in favor of the dominion mandate with its emphasis on the familial, economic, and civil spheres of life. Rushdoony’s own life and writings are, perhaps, the most glaring illustration of this dangerous imbalance. North’s comments about Rushdoony in his response to Christianity Today.[19] Remarks like the following in Rushdoony’s Institutes do nothing to calm one’s fears of imbalance.
In spite of the early and excellent statement, Protestantism has by and large by-passed the law as the way of sanctification in favor of the “impulse of self-devised devotion.” Moreover, the more it has followed in this course, the more self-righteous and pharisaic has it become, a natural course where men make the word of God of none effect through their traditions (Matt. 15:6-9). The sanctified person in Protestantism is too often a sanctimonious law-breaker who goes to Sunday School, attends church twice each Sunday, prayer-meeting in the week, gives testimonies when asked, and is amazed if he is told that the law of God, rather than man-made spiritual exercises, constitutes the way of sanctification. Many preachers stress long hours of prayer as a mark of holiness, in plain defiance of Christ’s condemnation of those who thought, with their long prayers, they would “be heard for their much speaking.” (Matt. 6:7)
In Arminian churches, and especially the so-called “holiness churches (Pentecostal and others), sanctification is associated with various emotional binges, which are far closer to the methods of ancient Baal worship, which, in its extreme, went into cutting and even castrating oneself (1 Kings 18:28). . . .[20]
We are glad to say that North’s attitudes about the church appear far less extreme in Unconditional Surrender, yet statements which provoke deep concern still remain.
. . . The doctrine of predestination can lead to social impotence if it is coupled with pessimism concerning the long-run triumph of the church, in time and on earth. Those who hold both the doctrine of predestination and an eschatology of earthy, historical defeat have a tendency to run inward, both psychologically and ecclesiastically. They worry too much about the state of their souls and the state of the institutional church, and not enough about the state of the kingdom of God in its broadest sense. . . .[21]
Theonomists may at this point want to remind us that there is no ultimate dichotomy between “soul-saving” and the church on the one hand, and the dominion mandate on the other. With this, of course, we agree. We would, however, remind them that it is they themselves who have made this dichotomy when they said things like that quoted above.[22]
[1]Ibid, pp. 189, 194, 211
[2] Ibid, p. 210
[3] Geerhardus Vos, Pauline Eschatology, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972) p. 25
[4] George Eldon Ladd, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974, p. 95
[5]Ladd, op. cit., p. 95
[6]Ladd, op. cit., p. 97
[7]Ibid, p. 98
[8] Ibid, p. 99
[9]The Parable of the Sower implies the germinal power, the amazing fruitfulness of the Word (Matt. 13:8, 23). But note that growth and progress co-exists with the reality of fruitlessness in this parable. The parallel occurrence of the Parable of the Mustard Seed in Mark 4:30-32 gives a clearer emphasis to the idea of growth by its use of three, durative present tenses in verse 32. The context of Mark 4:30-32 points to the idea of growth. Cf. the parable found in 4:26-29. The term, áõôoìáôç, and the delineation of three stages of growth point up the idea of growth. (4) The context of the Parable of the Mustard Seed as it is found in Luke 13:18-20. Note the connection between verse 10-17 and verses 18-20. Those verses emphasize the present power of Jesus’ word to heal the sick, humiliate his enemies and gladden the multitude with the word of salvation. (5) The allusion to such parables as that of the mustard seed in Col. 1:6, 10, 11 confirms the presence of the growth idea in them.
[10]North, Unconditional Surrender, pp. 179-183
[11]Ibid, pp. 195, 198 Cf. p. 202
[12]Rushdoony, The Meaning of Postmillennialism, p. 10
[13]North, Unconditional Surrender, p. 201
[14]Ibid, pp. 199, 200
[15]Cf. Dr. Bob Martin’s tapes on the subject from the l985 Trinity Pastor’s conference.
[16]Rushdoony, The Meaning of Postmillennialism p. 10
[17]John Murray, Collected Writings, vol. 1 (The Banner of Truth Trust, 1976), pp. 356-358
[18]Rushdoony, The Meaning of Postmillennialism, p. 3
[19]North, Honest Reporting . . .
[20]Rushdoony, Institutes, pp. 551ff.
[21]North, Unconditional Surrender, pp. 213, 214
[22]Cf. Rushdoony’s assertion of this dichotomy in The Meaning of The Postmillennialism, p. 10.
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 Sam Waldron | Oct 20, 2022 | Theonomy?
*This series is a republication of lectures written by Dr. Waldron near the end of the 1980s. This is Part 8 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/
For Part 5, you can click here: https://cbtseminary.org/the-historical-background-of-theonomic-ethics-sam-waldron/
For Part 6, you can click here: https://cbtseminary.org/a-biblical-refutation-of-theonomic-ethics-sam-waldron/
For Part 7, you can click here: https://cbtseminary.org/a-reformed-alternative-to-theonomic-ethics-sam-waldron/
Theonomy: A Reformed Baptist Assessment
What is Theonomic Postmillenialism?
In the interest of fairness and clarity, it is well to begin by permitting Christian Reconstructionists to speak for themselves. Having permitted both Rushdoony and North to describe in their own terms the nature of their postmillennialism, we will conclude this presentation by observing three features of their eschatology.
Rushdoony in his popular booklet entitled The Meaning of Postmillennialism: God’s Plan for Victory presents his eschatology in stark contrast to all defeatist eschatologies whether premillennial or amillennial. Speaking of these other eschatologies, he says,
In theory, the amillennial position holds that there is a parallel development of good and evil, of God’s Kingdom and Satan’s Kingdom. In reality, amillennialism holds that the major area of growth and power is in Satan’s Kingdom, because the world is seen as progressively falling away to Satan, the church’s trials and tribulations increasing, and the end of the world finding the church lonely and sorely beset. There is no such thing as a millennium or a triumph of Christ and His Kingdom in history. The role of the saints is at best to grin and bear it, and more likely to be victims and martyrs. The world will go from bad to worse in the pessimistic viewpoint. The Christian must retreat from the world of action in the realization that there is no hope for this world, no world-wide victory of Christ’s cause, nor world peace and righteousness. The law of God is irrelevant, because there is no plan of conquest, no plan of triumph in Christ’s name and power. At best, God’s law is a plan for private morality, not for men and nations in their every aspect. Not surprisingly, amillennialism produces a retreating and crabbed outlook, a church in which men have no thought of victory but only of endless nit-picking about trifles. It produces a phariseeism of men who believe they are the elect in a world headed for hell, a select elite who must withdraw from the futility of the world around them. It produces what can be called an Orthodox Pharisees Church, wherein failure is a mark of election. Lest this seem an exaggeration, one small denomination has a habit of regarding pastors who produce growth in their congregations with some suspicion, because it is openly held by many pastors that growth is a mark of compromise, whereas incompetence and failure are marks of election! Amillennial pastors within this church regularly insist that success surely means compromise, and their failures are a mark of purity and election. Not surprisingly, postmillennials cannot long remain in this basically and almost exclusively amillennial church.
Let us now examine some common traits of amillennialism and premillennialism. First, both regard attempts to build a Christian society or to further Christian reconstruction as either futile or wrong. If God has decreed that the world’s future is one of downward spiral, then indeed Christian reconstruction is futile. As a prominent premillennial pastor and radio preacher, the Rev. J. Vernon McGee declared in the early 1950’s, “You don’t polish brass on a sinking ship.” If the world is a sinking ship, then efforts to eliminate prostitution, crime, or any kind of social evil, and to expect the Christian conquest of the social order, are indeed futile.”[1]
He concludes this booklet with a summary of his own eschatology,
Postmillennialism is the faith that Christ will through His people accomplish and put into force the glorious prophecies of Isaiah and all the Scriptures, that He shall overcome all His enemies through His covenant people, and that He shall exercise His power and Kingdom in all the world and over all men and nations, so that, whether in faith or in defeat, every knee shall bow to Him and every tongue shall confess God (Rom. 14:11; Phil. 2:11). . . .
How is Christ’s Kingdom to come? Scripture is again very definite and explicit. The glorious peace and prosperity of Christ’s reign will be brought about ONLY as people obey the covenant law. In Lev. 26, Deut. 28, and all of Scripture, this is plainly stated. There will be peace and prosperity in the land, the enemy will be destroyed, and men will be free of evils only “If ye walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments, and do them (Lev. 26:3). The obedience of faith to the law of God produces IRRESISTIBLE BLESSINGS. “And all these blessings shall come on thee, and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God” (Deut. 28:2). On the other hand, disobedience leads to IRRESISTIBLE CURSES. . . .
God’s determination of history is thus plainly described in His law. If we believe and obey, then we are blessed and we prosper in Him; if we deny Him and disobey His law, we are cursed and confounded. . . .
. . . Antinomian postmillennials deny the God-given way to God’s Kingdom when they by-pass the law. In effect, they posit without reference to it, a rapture! How else is the world going to move from its present depravity into God’s order? Are we going to float in on vague prayers and “higher-life” spirituality? The antinomian postmillennials have no answer.
The charge is often raised that the postmillennialism of colonial and 19th century Calvinism led to the Social Gospel of the 20th century. No one has documented this charge, which is obviously false. The Hodges, Warfield, Machen, and others were not the source of the Social Gospel, and were hostile to it. The roots of that movement are in Arminianism, and, very directly, in that notable humanist-revivalist, C. G. Finney.[2]
North in his popularization of Theonomy gives this summary of his eschatological outlook,
But it isn’t enough to proclaim the foundations of a godly society, nor is it sufficient to describe some of the institutional arrangements of such a society. What is needed is a dynamic, a psychologically motivating impulse to give godly men confidence that their efforts are not in vain, and that their work for the kingdom of God will have meaning in the future, not just in heaven, but in time and on earth. We need a goal to sacrifice for, a standard of performance that is at the same time a legitimate quest. What is needed is confidence that all this talk about the marvels of the kingdom of God becomes more than mere talk. What is needed is a view of history that guarantees to Christians external, visible victory, in time and on earth, as a prelude, a down payment, to the absolute and eternal victory which Christians are confident awaits them after the day of judgment. . . .
. . . What if the following scenario were the case? First, God saves men through the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Second, these men respond in faith to God’s dominion assignment, given to us through our fathers, Adam, Noah, and Christ in the great commission (Matthew 28:18-20). Third, these regenerate men begin to study the law of God, subduing their own hearts, lives, and areas of responsibility in terms of God’s comprehensive law-order. Fourth, the blessings of God begin to flow toward these who are acting in His name and in terms of His law. Fifth, the stewardship principle of “service as a road to leadership” begins to be acknowledged by those who call themselves Christian, in every sphere of life: family, institutional church, schools, civil government, economy. This leads to step six, the rise to prominence of Christians in every sphere of life, as Satanists become increasingly impotent to handle the crises that their world-and-life view has created. Seventh, the law of God is imposed progressively across the face of each society which has declared commitment to Christ. Eighth, this provokes foreign nations to jealousy, and they begin to imitate the Christian social order, in order to receive the external blessings. Ninth, even the Jews are provoked to jealousy, and they convert to Christ. Tenth, the conversion of the Jews leads to an unparalleled explosion of conversions, followed by even greater external blessings. Eleventh, the kingdom of God becomes worldwide in scope, serving as a down payment by God to His people on the restoration which will come beyond the day of judgment. Twelfth, the forces of Satan have something to provoke them to rebellion, after generations of subservience outwardly to the benefits-producing law of God. Thirteenth, this rebellion by Satan is immediately smashed by Christ in His final return in glory and judgment. Fourteenth, Satan, his troops of angels, and his human followers are judged, and then condemned to the lake of fire. And finally, fifteenth, God sets up His new heaven and new earth, for regenerate men to serve in throughout all eternity. . . .
. . .If men really believed that this scenario is possible–indeed, inevitable–would they not redouble their efforts to begin to subdue the earth?[3]
Later in the same book North elaborates upon this summary.[4]
Three features of this eschatological outlook must now be underscored. The first is its ethical rationale or, at least its intimate ethical association. Theonomic Postmillennialists believe their system is demanded or, at least strongly commended by its power to motivate men to keep God’s law in every worldly sphere of life. This is a thread which runs throughout Rushdoony’s The Meaning of Postmillennialism.[5] North’s description of his eschatological outlook as “dynamic, a psychologically motivating impulse” makes this explicit. Theonomists reason that since the dominion mandate of Genesis 1 demands that we subdue every area of life to God by means of His law, then that eschatology which most encourages us to do so must be the best and most Biblical eschatology.
The second feature which emerges from these quotations is the self-conscious peculiarity of Theonomic postmillennialism. Though they can cite those like Jonathan Edwards whom they call “pietistic postmillennialists” when it suits them,[6] the quote from Rushdoony above evinces a self-conscious distance from those whom Rushdoony calls “antinomian postmillennialists.” North in another work identifies Jonathan Edwards himself with such pietistic, antinomian postmillennialists. Chilton writes in his book, Days of Vengeance,
The great defect with the postmillennial revival inaugurated by Jonathan Edwards and his followers in the eighteenth century was their neglect of biblical law. They expected to see the blessings of God come as a result of merely soteriological preaching. Look at Edwards’ Treatise on the Religious Affections. There is nothing on the law of God on culture. Page after page is filled with the words “sweet” and “sweetness.” a diabetic reader is almost risking a relapse by reading this book in one sitting. The words sometimes appear four or five times on a page. And while Edwards was preaching the sweetness of God, Arminian semi-literates were “hot-gospeling” the Holy Commonwealth of Connecticut into political antinomianism. Where sweetness and emotional hot flashes are concerned, Calvinistic preaching is no match for antinomian sermons. The hoped-for revival of the 1700s became the Arminian revivals of the early 1800s, leaving emotionally burned-over districts, cults, and the abolitionist movement as their devastating legacy. Because the postmillennial preaching of the Edwardians was culturally antinomian and pietistic, it crippled the remnants of Calvinistic political order in the New England colonies, helping to produce a vacuum that Arminianism and then Unitarianism filled.[7]
It is clear that one peculiarity of Theonomic postmillennialism is its emphasis on the application of Biblical law to every area of human life as the means of bringing about millennial blessing. As North is fond of reminding us, the law is man’s instrument or “tool of dominion.”[8] As the quote from Rushdoony makes clear the full, present applicability of the blessings described in Lev. 26 and Deut. 28 (and there promised to the obedience of Israel, the Theocratic nation), is the crucial link which connects obedience to the law with millennial blessing. North seconds Rushdoony’s point.
God established His covenant with Adam, and again with Noah. It was a dominion covenant. It was man’s authorization to subdue the earth, but under God’s overall authority and under His law. God also covenanted with Abram, changing his name to Abraham, and instituting the sign of His covenant, circumcision. He covenanted with Jacob, Abraham’s grandson, changing his name to Israel, promising to bless Jacob’s efforts (Genesis 32:24-30). God covenanted with Moses and the children of Israel, promising to bless them if they conformed to His laws, but curse them if they disobeyed (Deuteronomy 8:28). The covenant was a treaty, and it involved mutual obligations and promises. The ruler, God, offers the peace treaty to a man or selection of men, and they in turn accept its terms of surrender. The treaty spells out mutual obligations: protection and blessings from the King, and obedience on the part of the servants. It also spells out the term of judgement: cursings from the King in case of rebellion on the part of the servants.
This same covenant is extended to the church to day. It covers the institutional church, and it also applies to nations that agree to conform their laws to God’s standards . . . .
The law of God also provides us with a tool of external dominion. God promises blessings for that society which surrenders unconditionally to Him, and then adopts the terms of His peace treaty (Deuteronomy 8 and 28).
Fourth, the blessings of God begin to flow in the direction of His people. “A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children’s children: and the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just” (Proverbs 13:22). As Benjamin Franklin said, honesty is the best policy. Capital flows to those who will bear responsibility, predict the future accurately, plan to meet the needs of consumers with a minimum of waste, and deal honestly with both suppliers and customers. Again, Deuteronomy 8 and 28 show us the nature of this wealth-transfer process. This wealth-transfer program is through market completion and conformity to God’s law. Satan’s kingdom is progressively decapitalized.[9]
This use of Deut. 28 and parallel passages is a critical linchpin in the Theonomic argument for postmillennialism.
The third feature of Theonomic postmillennialism which must be underscored, though implicit in the above quotations, is not explicit. It is their rejection of what Chilton calls “Chiliastic Postmillennialism.”[10] Rather, they argue for the historical continuity of the present age until the return of Christ after their golden age. They reject the idea that the millennium or at least the future millennial blessings are to be brought in by a single catastrophic event. Chilton in his commentary on the Book of Revelation writing on Rev. 20 asserts,
Millennarianism can take two general forms. It can be either Premillennarianism (with the Second Coming as the cataclysm that ushers in the Millennium), or Postmillennarianism (with the Social Revolution as the cataclysm). Examples of the first branch of Chiliasm would be, of course, the Ebionite movement of the Early Church period, and the modern Dispensationalism of the Scofield-Ryrie school. Examples of the Postmillennarian heresy would be easy to name as well: the Munster Revolt of 1534, Nazism, and Marxism (whether “Christian” or otherwise). Orthodox Christianity rejects both forms of the Millennarian heresy. Christianity opposes the notion of any new redemptive cataclysm occurring before the Last Judgment. Christianity is anti-revolutionary. Thus, while Christians have always looked forward to the salvation of the world, believing that Christ died and rose again for that purpose, they have also seen the Kingdom’s work as leavening influence, gradually transforming the world into the image of God. The definitive cataclysm has already taken place, in the finished work of Christ. Depending on the specific question being asked, therefore, orthodox Christianity can be considered either amillennial or postmillennial because, in reality, it is both. . . .
With the rise of divergent eschatologies over the last two centuries, the traditional evangelical optimism of the Church was tagged with the term “postmillennialism,” whether the so-called “postmillennialists” liked it or not. This has had positive results. On the plus side, it is (as we have seen) a technically accurate description of orthodoxy; and it carries the connotation of optimism. On the minus side, it can too often be confused with heretical millennarianism. And, while, “amillennialism” rightly expresses the orthodox abhorrence of apocalyptic revolution, it carries (both by name and by historic association) a strong connotation of defeatism. The present writer therefore calls himself a “postmillennialist,” but also seeks to be sensitive to the inadequacies of current theological terminology. . . .
Some have sought to remedy this by styling themselves “optimistic amillennialists,” a term that has nothing wrong with it except a mouthful of syllables (the term “non-chiliastic postmillennialist” suffers from the same problem.)[11]
North likewise argues from the parables of Matt. 13.
If we are to take the parables seriously, then we have to begin to think about the continuity of history in between Pentecost and the final judgment. If there is no great break coming which will divide this period into two or more segments, then whatever happens to the world, the flesh, the devil, and the church (institutional) must happen without direct, cataclysmic intervention, either from God or Satan. The process will be one of growth or decay. The process may be an ebb and flow, heading for victory for the church or defeat for the church, in time and on earth. But what cannot possibly be true is that the church’s victory process or defeat process will be interrupted and reversed by the direct, visible physical intervention of Jesus Christ and His angels. No discontinuity of history which overcomes the very processes of history in one cataclysmic break will take place. Christians must not base their hopes for collective or personal victory on an historically unprecedented event in history which is in fact the destruction of history. They will sink or swim, win or lose, in time and on earth, by means of the same sorts of processes as we see today, although the speed will increase or decrease in response to man’s ethical conformity to God’s law, or his rebellion against that law.[12]
The Theonomic writers we have quoted are to be commended for avoiding a clearly unbiblical extremism and their attempt to embrace a Biblical perspective essentially alien to their own.
[1]Rushdoony, The Meaning of Postmillennialism, pp. 8, 9, 10 Cf. pp. 2, 10
[2]Ibid, pp. 53-56
[3]Gary North, Unconditional Surrender, God’s Program for Victory, (Tyler, TX, Geneva Divinity School Press 1983) pp. 176-177
[4]Ibid, pp. 196-201
[5]Rushdoony, The Meaning of Postmillennialism, pp. 2, 8-10, 16-27, 29, 30
[6]Ibid, pp. 21-23
[7]Ibid, pp. 21-23
[8] North, Unconditional Surrender, p. 73
[9] Chilton, op. cit., p. 495
[10] Chilton, op. cit., p. 495
[11] Ibid, pp. 495, 496, 498
[12]North, Unconditional Surrender, pp. 182, 193
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 Hicks | Oct 18, 2022 | Civil Government, Practical Theology, Systematic Theology, Theonomy?
To frame the issue more precisely, the question is not whether a society or nation ought to worship the one true God rightly. Societies should certainly worship the one true God according to His commands. Furthermore, the question is not whether false worshippers deserve punishment. God will certainly punish them temporally in this life as well as eternally in the life to come, if they do not repent. Additionally, the question is not whether societies are inherently religious. They are. Groups of people will inevitably embody some form of religion, and it certainly ought to be the one true religion.
This question has to do with the limits of human authorities and more particularly with the jurisdictional boundaries of the civil government. Does the civil government have the authority to punish violations of the first table of the moral law of God? Does God give the state the power to punish false worship, blasphemy, and heresy, and does God give the state the power to promote, enforce, or coerce orthodox worship?
Baptists, Independents (Congregationalists) and American Reformed Christians have generally spoken with a unified voice on this question. They have insisted on religious liberty for Christians and all human beings. Here are some of their arguments (I’ve used David VanDrunen’s book, Politics After Christendom, as well as historic Baptist sources):
First, it is evil to try to coerce a person’s conscience through external force because God alone is Lord of the conscience. External coercion in no way advances the kingdom of God, but only turns people into hypocrites who pretend to worship God, but actually disobey Him in their hearts and lives. Isaiah 29:13 says, “This people draw near with their mouth and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men.” Jesus said, “If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not of this world” (Jn 18:36). Christ’s kingdom is not a kingdom of outward power or force.
Consider seven of the consequences that come from the civil coercion of worship.
First, unbelievers will be led to lie and to worship God when their minds are already convinced otherwise. God is displeased with false worship. He warned, “This people praises me with their lips but their hearts are far from me” (Matt 15:8; Is 29:13). Second, external laws that coerce formal worship can only produce external pharisaical obedience, and can only create a nation of hypocrites. Third, human lawmakers will inevitably make laws that enforce false doctrine and worship because human beings inevitably err. Fourth, when the civil authorities change and the laws change, the state religion will also change. But the true religion does not change. Fifth, religious laws will attract dangerous wolves to the leadership of the church in order to influence civil government. These wolves will harm God’s true people in the church. Sixth, it will interfere with missions, since foreign nations will strongly oppose missionaries who intend on changing their government and punishing their native religions. Seventh, it will provoke the people of false religions to persecute and suppress Christianity in order to preserve their own worship and culture.
Second, God alone can cause a sinner to forsake false worship and become a true worshipper. The Lord Jesus is clear when He says, “No one can come to me, unless it is granted him by the Father” (Jn 6:65). Government coercion can never regenerate a sinner’s heart to make him forsake his idols or worship God faithfully. God alone changes the hearts of elect sinners through effectual calling, turning them into true worshippers. Since government enforced worship is utterly impossible, the regulation of worship is outside the jurisdiction of the government.
Third, the Bible explicitly teaches religious liberty. Religious liberty means that people should be free to worship according to their consciences as long as they do not cause material harm to others. Now religions that promote violence, or those that are so contrary to the customs of a nation that they destabilize that society, resulting in civil unrest, may be chastened for the sake of good order. But the civil authority should not aim to erradicate false religions or promote the true one by the power of the sword.
The Parable of the Weeds
One important text that teaches religious liberty is found in Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43, which is the parable of the sower and the field. It says Christ sows the wheat, who are sons of the kingdom, but the weeds are sons of the evil one. Christ teaches that the field is the whole world, not the church. He says that no one should try to pull up the weeds before Judgment Day because in trying to root out the weeds, they might also pull up the wheat.
Matthew 13:24-30 says:
“[24] He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, [25] but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. [26] So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. [27] And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?’ [28] He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ So the servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ [29] But he said, ‘No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. [30] Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, “Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”
Note that Christ says not to gather up the weeds, but to allow the weeds and the wheat to grow together until harvest time, which is judgment day. Then Christ gives the interpretation. Matthew 13:36-43 says:
“[36] Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” [37] He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. [38] The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, [39] and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. [40] Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. [41] The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, [42] and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. [43] Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.”
Often this parable is interpreted as being about the visible church. But Christ explicitly says that the field is the world. Only the good seed are “sons of the kingdom.” The weeds are the “sons of the evil one.” Thus, the world is composed of believers and unbelievers, and no one should try to root out the unbelievers from the world until judgment day.
Christ Rebuked the Disciples for Wanting a Wicked Town Destroyed
Another passage is Luke 9:51-55, where the disciples wanted Jesus to ask God to rain down fire on a wicked town that refused to believe in Him. But Jesus rebuked the disciples. Christ didn’t want to bring temporal judgments or destruction on cities that refused to worship Him. Here is the account in Luke 9:51-55.
[51] When the days drew near for him to be taken up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem. [52] And he sent messengers ahead of him, who went and entered a village of the Samaritans, to make preparations for him. [53] But the people did not receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem. [54] And when his disciples James and John saw it, they said, “Lord, do you want us to tell fire to come down from heaven and consume them?” [55] But he turned and rebuked them.
Clearly, our Lord did not intend to destroy cities who opposed Him prior to the day of judgment.
Christ’s Kingdom is Not of this World
Yet another passage about religious liberty is found in John 18:33-37, where Christ teaches His redemptive kingdom does not grow by state power.
“[33] So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” [34] Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?” [35] Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?” [36] Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” [37] Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.”
Christ said that if His kingdom were of this world, then He servants would be fighting. The kingdom of Christ cannot grow by coercive means. How does the redemptive kingdom grow? By the means of the preaching of the Word and God’s sovereign Spirit alone. Therefore, the temporal power cannot be ordered to an eternal redemptive end. Christ’s redemptive kingdom grows by one power only: The Word, when the Spirit adds His blessing.
Christ’s Kingdom Does not Use Weapons of the Flesh
2 Corinthians 10:3-6 teaches that Christ’s redemptive kingdom does not wage war according to the flesh, but by the proclaimation of the truth alone, which destroys arguments and opinions. It reads:
“[3] For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. [4] For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. [5] We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, [6] being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete.”
Here again, temporal powers cannot be arranged so as to advance the redemptive kingdom. When Christ established the new covenant church, He did it without any civil power at all. The early church grew against all opposition without the assistance of any temporal power to punish heretics. Therefore, if Christ established and grew His church this way originally, why should we think He grows His church differently now?
Fourth, the Old Testament theocracy has been abolished. The old covenant judicial law had punishments for blasphemy, idolatry, and false worship which served particular purposes until the coming of Christ (Gal 3:23-25), but the old covenant is abolished now that Christ has come (Heb 8:7, 13; 10:9). Furthermore, the harsh penalties of the Old Testament theocracy (Acts 15:10) were types of eternal judgment (Heb 10:28-29), and were intented to perserve the line of Christ until the coming of Christ (Gal 3:19), but they were never given as a universal moral norm for all nations. See here for a refutation of theonomy (the idea that the old covenant judicial law is morally binding upon all nations).
Fifth, the civil magistrates of Gentile nations lack any biblical or natural authorization to compel people to be members of a particular church or to worship God rightly. The civil jurisdiction is restricted to outward matters of the body, and they have no power over inward matters of the soul and conscience (see Neh 9:37). Beliefs, convictions, and personal speech are matters of the conscience and soul, not the body, and therefore out outside the regulative authority of civil governments.
Sixth, in Genesis 9, God established a common covenant with the whole world that does not enforce the first table. The Noahic covenant is a common covenant because it’s shared in common with believers and unbelievers. In this covenant, God only gives society the power of the sword to punish murderers, and by implication to enforce lex talionis, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, for all crimes that injure fellow citizens. In Genesis 9, God does not give society the power to punish idolaters or to enforce worship, though God the Creator should be recognized by the civil government.
Seventh, in Romans 13, Paul never mentions the first table. It teaches that civil government has the power to punish those who do evil (Rom 13:1-4), and it lists commandments from the second table of the moral law, but not from the first table (Rom 13:9). While one could argue that Paul was simply supplying a partial list, there seems to be an implication that only the second table is in view when it comes to punishable civil offenses in a Gentile culture.
Eighth, right government of a society does not require its rulers to be experts in the Scriptures, but non-Christian cultures can and have flourished. Consider the great historic kingdoms and empires that had no Christian witness, and yet they were able to maintain order and generally uphold the law of nature as it pertains to the right functioning of society. The early Romans and Greeks are such examples. The pagans know by nature what is right and wrong and outwardly seek to practice it for their own good due to the nature of the world God has made (Rom 2:14-15; cf. 1 Cor 5:1).
Ninth, if civil government is given the power of the sword to punish heretics and coerce orthodox worship, serious problems will arise in a society. We know this from the historic records of societies where it has been tried. The government will make martyrs out of heretics and wolves, amplifying their voices and doing great harm. There will be endless bitter and divisive battles as to what constitutes orthodoxy, which must be imposed by force. And government coercion of the conscience will limit the freedom of theologians to study the Scriptures, since orthodoxy and right worship would be determined by the state. Further a state with power to command worship and legislate the conscience would have the absolute right to rule all things and would inevitably be corrupted and become tyrannical in our cursed world.
Tenth, if you look at the OT prophetic denunciations of pagan nations like Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon, the prophets do not pronounce judgment upon them for idol worship. Rather the prophets judged pagan nations for great injustices in their societies. The prophets condemned Israel for idolatry, but not the pagan nations. This implies that it isn’t the responsibility of pagan societies to coerce obedience to the first table.
Eleventh, the golden rule applies in that since you wouldn’t want the state to force you to worship in the way it determines, you shouldn’t want the state to force others to worship in the way it determines either. Christ teaches, “Whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the law and the prophets” (Matt 7:12). If you wouldn’t want people coercing you to worship their god or gods according to their consciences, then you shouldn’t try to coerce them to worship your God according to your conscience.
Baptist History on the Relation Between the Church and the State
In 2014, Ronald Baines wrote a wonderful article in the Journal for the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies, where he shows what historic Baptists believed about the relationship between the institutional church and the civil government.
He cites Daniel Merrill, an early Particular Baptist, who wrote, “the kingdom, which the God of heaven set up, has never needed, so has never debased herself by soliciting, the secular arm to enforce the mandates of the Church…Of the civil authority she asks no more, than to have it stand out of her sunshine. That Cesar, in agreement with the ordinance of heaven, would look well to the management of Caesar’s kingdom, and leave it with the Lord to manage his.”
The Shaftsbery (Vermont) Baptist Association said, “kingdom of heaven…is not defended by carnal weapons” and “forms no alliance with the kingdoms and states of this world, but is distinct from them.”
The Philadelphia Association wrote, “Christ’s kingdom needs no support from union with the governments of this world; that the more distinctly the line is drawn between them the better.”
Isaac Backus anticipated objections to this position. He said it was not that the unbelief or false worship of the citizenry was acceptable to God or the Baptists; rather God did not ordain the civil government as the means for addressing the unbelief of those outside the church. He said, “The question between us [that is between Baptists and paedobaptists] is not, whether it be the duty [of citizens to trust Christ and worship Him rightly]…but it is, whether that duty ought to be enforced by the sword, or only by instruction, persuasion and good example?”
Backus went on to say, “the church is armed with light and truth, to pull down the strongholds of iniquity, and to gain souls to Christ, and into his church, to be governed by his rules therein; and again to exclude such from their communion, who will not be so governed; while the state is armed with the sword to guard the peace, and the civil rights of all persons and societies, and to punish those who violate the same. And where these two kinds of government, and the weapons which belong to them, are well distinguished, and improved according to the true nature and end of their institution, the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded together, no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischiefs that have ensued; of which the Holy Ghost gave early and plain warnings.”
by Sam Waldron | Oct 13, 2022 | Theonomy?
*This series is a republication of lectures written by Dr. Waldron near the end of the 1980s. This is Part 7 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/
For Part 5, you can click here: https://cbtseminary.org/the-historical-background-of-theonomic-ethics-sam-waldron/
For Part 6, you can click here: https://cbtseminary.org/a-biblical-refutation-of-theonomic-ethics-sam-waldron/
I.) A Reformed Defense of Religious Liberty
1.) The Theonomic view of the Separation of Church and State Refuted
It is a misconception to think that Theonomists reject the separation of the church and state. They do, however, to say the least, define the separation of church and state differently than it is normally defined in our day either by secularists or Christians. In fairness to Bahnsen his view of the separation of church and state is not novel, but may claim to be typical of Calvin, the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the earlier Reformed tradition. Bahnsen argues
Therefore, an investigation of the Older and New Testaments reveals that they both separate the functions of the state from those of the church; however, they both maintain also the authority of God over church as well as state. In the era of the New Testament this means that the sword of the state is under moral responsibility to the law of God without being confused with the sword of the church. The state has recourse to capital punishment as a penal sanction, but the church’s severest punishment is that of excommunication. . . The state does not operate in the name of the Redeemer or as an organized expression of the redeemed community. However, this does not mean that the state is not morally responsible to God and His justice. . . The point, then, is that church and state can be separated with respect to function, instrument, and scope and yet both be responsible to God. . . the law does not grant the state to enforce matters of conscience (thus granting “freedom of religion”), but it does have the obligation to prohibit and restrain public unrighteousness (thus punishing crimes from rape to public blasphemy). The state is not an agent of evangelism and does not use its force to that end; it is an agent of God, avenging His wrath against social violations of God’s law. If one’s outward behavior is within the bounds of the law he has nothing to fear from the civil magistrate-even if one is an idolater, murderer, or whatever in his heart.”[1]
Let there be no misunderstanding of Bahnsen’s position. In his ideal state “public” blasphemy, idolatry, sabbath-breaking, apostasy, witchcraft, sorcery, and false pretension to prophecy would be subject to civil penalties up to and including the death penalty.
Bahnsen’s views at this point are characteristic of the views of Christian Reconstructionism as a whole. It would be easy to multiply quotations which would evince this with reference to both North and Rushdoony. One practical illustration of this view is North’s remark that Christians should work to get the tax exemptions of “liberal” churches lifted (denied). [2]
It is obvious that in any theonomically organized state religious liberty would be constantly threatened by the civil government. If a civil government feels itself responsible to judicially penalize, public sabbath-breaking, apostasy, heresy, and blasphemy, then religious liberty is in real jeopardy.
2.) The Biblical View of the Separation of Church and State Defended
a.) The Presumption of Such a Separation
We begin again here by reminding ourselves of the redemptive history of the Theocratic Kingdom. With the expiration of the partially restored Theocratic order in A. D. 70, all civil authority ceased to be Theocratic in the sense in which we have defined that word in these lectures. God is no longer the unique king of any civil entity. No nation is now mandated to adhere to a divinely revealed civil order. While the moral principles enshrined in the laws of the Old covenant remain authoritative, no nation is bound to the detailed, civil order of Old Testament Israel. Add to all of this the destruction of the Temple as the earthly throne of Yahweh and one must also conclude that no longer are church and state a united entity. The redeemed community no longer has a civil structure. Thus, the divine establishment of the Gentile civil authorities means that the separation of the civil and ecclesiastical institutions in human society is now God’s preceptive will. The alteration of this order will be signaled only by the return of Christ. Thus, the separation of church and state is assumed and commanded by the Lord Jesus Christ when he directed that we should “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s” (Matt. 22:21).
b.) The Arguments for Such a Separation
Many arguments could be brought forward in defense of religious freedom or soul liberty. I will only mention two:
(1) Dictating religious belief and worship is not the task or function of the state. It is outside the sphere of the civil authorities.
The state is to preserve civil justice and peace and protect men from violence to their bodies or property. This is the teaching of the Bible (Rom. 13:3, 4; Mt. 22:21; I Tim. 2:2; 1 Pet. 2:14; Ps. 82:1-4, 58:2, Deut. 4:27; Gen 6:11, 12, 9:5, 6; Ps. 72:14, Ezek. 7:23, 45:9; Prov. 21:15, 24:11, 12, 29:14, 26, 31:5).
Men may and do differ as to religious belief without disrupting the peace or offering violence to others. The weapon of the civil authority is the sword. Swords are not good weapons, they are not even the right weapons, with which to mold or rule men’s consciences. Civil authority rules mens’ bodies, not their souls (Neh. 9:37).
(2) For a state to dictate religious belief or worship inevitably requires the State to rule the church or the church to rule the state. Since the Bible teaches the sphere-sovereignty of both the state and the church under God, to require the state to restrain violations of the first table of the law necessarily violates the teaching of Scripture.
The Westminster Confession of Faith in its original form is the best illustration of this. In chapter 23 and paragraph 3 it states:
The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.
In Chapter 21 and paragraph 4 of this original edition of the Westminster Confession provided similarly that
…for their publishing such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation), or to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against, by the censures of the Church, and by the power of the civil magistrate.
How can the state do such things without seriously compromising the church’s sovereignty under God? Without making the church a slave of men? It can’t!
3.) The Objection to Such Separation
A serious objection must now be addressed. Isn’t the civil authority to rule according to the Word of God? If so, how can it allow religious freedom? Must it not, therefore, enforce the first table of the law? If God forbids idolatry, for instance, must not the state also forbid and penalize idolatry and, therefore, proscribe Mormonism, Islam, Hinduism, and, indeed, any religion which does not profess to worship the Christian Trinity?
Here a crucial distinction must be enunciated. It is certainly true that civil authority is subject to the Word of God, but this does not mean that it is the duty of the civil authority to enforce every part of God’s Word with his own authority. Several illustrations will make this clear.
Eph. 6:4 requires, “And you fathers bring up your children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” Is the civil magistrate required to enforce this. No! Why? Because the Word is not his authority? No! But because He is not a Father. Note also the exhortations to pastors in I Pet. 5:2. Should the civil magistrate enforce this? No, because he is not a pastor. John Murray well says,
Since the civil magistrate is invested with this authority by God and is obliged by divine ordinance to discharge these functions, he is responsible to God, the one living and true God who alone has ordained him. The magistrate is, therefore, under obligation to discharge the office devolving upon him in accordance with the revealed will of God. The Bible is the supreme and infallible revelation of God’s will and it is, therefore, the supreme and infallible rule in all departments of life. The civil magistrate is under obligation to recognize it as the infallible rule for the exercise of civil magistracy.
It must be recognized, however, that it is only within his own restricted sphere of authority that the civil magistrate, in his capacity as civil magistrate, is to apply the revelation of God’s will as provided in Scripture. It is only to the extent to which the revelation of Scripture bears upon the functions discharged by the state and upon the performance of the office of the civil magistrate, that he, in the discharge of these functions, is bound to fulfil the demands of Scripture. If the civil magistrate should attempt, in his capacity as magistrate, to carry into effect the demands of Scripture which bear upon him in other capacities, or the demands of Scripture upon other institutions, he would immediately be guilty of violating his prerogatives and of contravening the requirements of Scripture.
The sphere of the church is distinct from that of the civil magistrate….What needs to be appreciated now is that its sphere is co-ordinate with that of the state. The church is not subordinate to the state, nor is the state subordinate to the church. They are both subordinate to God, and to Christ in his mediatorial dominion as head over all things to his body the church. Both church and state are under obligation to recognize this subordination, and the corresponding co-ordination of their respective spheres of operation in the divine institution. Each must maintain and assert its autonomy in reference to the other and preserve its freedom from intrusion on the part of the other.[3]
Why is the civil magistrate not to enforce the “first Table of the Law”? Because he is somehow not subject to the Word of God? No! Because it’s not his job!
4.) The Limits of Such Separation
Are there limits to religious freedom? When anyone’s religion disrupts civil justice or peace and threatens violence to others, then it exposes itself to the legitimate action of the state and must be restrained. Moloch Worship, Jehovah’s Witnesses’ refusal of blood transfusions for their children, and abortion are several examples of religiously held “rights” which should not be permitted.
II.) A Reformed Hermeneutic of Mosaic Law
How are we to tell which laws in the Old Covenant we must obey as Christians and which we need not obey?
This is the pressing question. In rejecting the alternative of Theonomy we have not settled this serious and practical issue. It is incumbent upon a treatment like this to provide some direction on this question. This is, however, a massive matter. The following is offered only as a general outline of the proper approach to this question.
1.) General Premises
a.) The Old Covenant is the most concentrated Biblical revelation of law and the central Biblical revelation of moral law.
The NT does not reveal, but rather assumes a system of ethics (Matt. 7:12; Luke 18:18-20; Rom. 13:8, 9; 1 Cor. 14:34, 35; James 1:25; 2:8-12; Jn. 1:17.)
b.) We must distinguish between the Old Covenant law as a temporary covenant and a permanent revelation.
Compare Heb. 8:13 with Eph. 6:1f; Gal. 3:19f. While the Old Covenant as a temporary covenant no longer binds us, as a permanent revelation of God and His moral law it does bind us.
Thus, we cannot answer the question with either of the two, extreme, (and superficial) answers. There is the answer of Dispensationalism. This is that nothing in the Old Covenant per se binds the Christian. There is the opposite answer, that to which Theonomy tends. This is that everything in the Old Covenant binds the Christian. According to the New Testament both of these answers are too facile. Some things do and some things do not bind us. We must be able to tell the difference.
c.) The moral law revealed in the Old Covenant has already been revealed to every man because its demands are written in his heart by creation. Man, therefore, by nature has certain ideas about right and wrong.
Cf. the following passages Rom. 2:14, 15 (The law mentioned in this passage is clearly according to the context the law given at Sinai.); 1 Cor. 11:13-15.
This natural revelation–granted–is suppressed by man’s depravity. Thus, a written revelation is necessary to make God’s demands clear to sinners. Yet, this means that no man approaches the question of his ethical duty as a blank slate. He approaches the question with a basic knowledge of that duty which barring his sin should guide him in sorting of the Old Covenant laws! Only his sin prevents this!
d.) Anything not abolished in Christ remains as the Christian’s duty.
Compare the exposition Matt. 5:17, 18. The Old Covenant was temporary because it was preparatory and pointed forward to Christ. Anything that was not at least in principle abolished by Christ was obviously not part of its temporary character. Examples of such temporary aspects of the Old Covenant are multiplied in the New Testament.
–The priestly and sacrificial laws (Hebrews 7-10).
–The dietary laws (Acts 10, 11 with Mk. 7:19).
–The judicial laws as part of the civil state of Israel (Luke 21:20-24; Acts 6:13-15; Heb. 8:13; 9:18-22; 10:1)
Obviously anything re-affirmed in the New Covenant by Christ or the Apostles is law for the Christian, but it is not necessary for a law to be explicitly reiterated. As long as it is not abolished by Christ, it remains in force.
Problems remain, of course, even after stating this premise. This is epitomized by the phrase used above, “at least in principle.” There are still gray areas. Hence other rules of thumb are necessary. This brings us to certain more specific guidelines.
2.) Specific Guidelines
a.) Any ordinance present from creation has abiding relevance for the Christian.
Any point at which the Mosaic regulations deviate from a creation mandate they obviously are part of the temporary aspects of the Old Covenant. Note Matt. 19:1-10. What originated at creation must endure as long as creation itself is not altered (Matt. 5:17, 19, Luke 20:34-36).
b.) Any law which is part of the Ten Commandments is permanent.
It is common in our day to raise an objection against the distinction between the moral and ceremonial dimensions of Old Covenant. It is argued that the Old Covenant was a unit and did not distinguish between one law and another. The Jews, it is said, could not have guessed which laws were moral and which ceremonial. We believe, however, that this distinction was made very plainly for the Jews. Who made the distinction? God did! God clearly distinguished the Ten from the rest. How?
–By speaking the Ten Commandments alone with his own voice
–By writing them alone with his own finger
–By writing them alone in stone, rather than a book
–By putting them alone in the ark of the covenant
In these ways at least God clearly distinguished one part of the Old Covenant law from the rest.
c.) Any law which the Gentiles as well as the Jews were obliged to obey is thereby revealed to be part of the natural law written on the heart of all men.
The obligation of the Gentiles to obey God presupposes a revelation informing them of their obligation. Since the Gentiles did not have special revelation, such laws must have been part of the general revelation of God’s law written on their hearts by creation. This perspective enables us to answer the question, Are the laws of Leviticus 18 for us? Cf. Lev. 18:6-23 and note particularly Lev. 18:1-5, 24-30. Clearly these laws do bind Christians. This is confirmed by the assumption of Paul in 1 Cor. 5:1f. that these laws obliged and should have been plainly understood by all the Corinthians.
3.) Test Cases
Two test cases will serve to show the relevance of the premises and guidelines mentioned above in discerning the abiding relevance of Old Testament laws to ourselves. The first case will be a positive example, the second a negative. Again, it is necessary to remind the reader that this treatment is intended only as simple sketch, showing the main lines of thought to be followed in discerning Old Covenant laws
a.) The Positive Example: The Sabbath
The weekly sabbath is a well-known crux of scriptural ethics. But the things mentioned above provide a straightforward answer as to its relevance for the Christian. It is a creation ordinance. It is part of the Ten Commandments. It obliged Gentiles dwelling among the Jews, at least, (Exod. 20:8-11). Thus, in terms of each of the three specific guidelines mentioned above the sabbath qualifies as abidingly relevant for the Christian.
Question is, of course, raised by many with reference to certain of the premises mentioned earlier. Some argue that the sabbath was abolished by Christ on the basis of passages like Col. 2, Gal. 4, and Rom. 14. Others argue that the Sabbath was not part of the law of nature. Each of these arguments has only partial validity.
It is true that the precise day of the week and even the length of the week is not part of the content of the law of nature. The most that can be said is that natural reason might anticipate that the appointed day of worship would not be much more or much less than one in seven. However, that God must be worshiped, worshiped corporately, and, thus, that a specified time must necessarily be appointed for that worship and appointed by God himself–all these things seem clearly a part of the law of nature to this writer. The true case seems to be that the law of the Sabbath is a mixed commandment; part natural and part positive. The implication of this must be noted. The positive part of the commandment could be changed, while the natural law underlying it embodied in a new institution. As a matter of fact, this is precisely what the biblical data indicates did happen. This brings us to the second issue raised above.
It is not necessary to deny that the seventh day sabbath was abolished by Christ or that this is the reference of, for instance, Col. 2:16, 17, though many fine exegetes have done so. It is simply necessary to distinguish the sabbath as a dictate of natural law from the sabbath as a positive law. That is to say, we must distinguish between the sabbath as a moral principle and the sabbath as a positive institution. As a positive institution, it is abolished. As a moral principle, it is re-incarnated in the Lord’s Day. It re-emerges in the Christian observance of the first day of the week. It is simply fallacious and hopelessly superficial to make Col. 2:16, 17 the first, last, and only statement of the Bible on the subject of the sabbath. It is downright wrong to ignore all those considerations mentioned above which lead directly to the conclusion that the sabbath is a moral principle abidingly relevant in all ages. It is impermissible to ignore and isolate all that the New Testament teaches regarding the first day of the week (Rev. 1:10, 1 Cor. 16:1, 2, Acts 20:7, 2:1, Jn. 20:1, 26).
b.) The Negative Example: the Year of Jubilee
In contrast to the sabbath day the sabbath year is on the basis of the principles enunciated above clearly not abidingly relevant for the Christian. It is not a creation ordinance, not a part of the Ten Commandments, not obligatory for Gentiles, (Lev. 25:39-55), and fulfilled and abolished by Christ (Lev. 4:16-19, 21:20-24.) both because it points to Christ’s work and because it was a civil law of Israel.
Conclusion
Are there not still gray areas? Yes and we must seek for greater light to discern and do God’s law of liberty. In the meantime such obscurities make us thankful for the fact and remind us that we are saved by grace and not the works of the law!
[1]Ibid, pp. 426, 427
[2]Gary North, The Theology of Christian Resistance, A Symposium, ed. by Gary North, (Tyler, TX, Geneva Divinity School, 1983), p. 64.
[3]Murray, Collected Writings, vol. 1, pp. 253, 254.
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.
