Let me say first, it is always perilous to speak for others, and especially when you're talking about something that has become such a controversial issue as the issue of theonomic ethics has become in the late 20th century. It appears that it's almost impossible to state authoritatively what the and the honest believe today now that appearance there's a reason for that and that's because there is there are so many differences among the honest about the details in the application of the of the thesis so there is a reason for that kind of confusion and what I'm going to focus on is what I believe to be the central thesis of the position. And I'm not going to be doing a lot of quoting, though I do have a few quotations, but I will not be able to confirm to you by my quotations that this is an authentically theonomic view. But I did want to begin with a quote from Dr. Greg Bonson, who summarizes his understanding of theonomy in one of the last books that he wrote on the subject, which was entitled No Other Standard. Dr. Bonson defines the viewpoint of theonomist in these terms. He says, theonomist are committed to the transformation of every area of life, including the institutions and affairs of the socio-political realm, according to the holy principles of God's revealed word. And he defined that as theonomy. And Dr. Bonson followed that brief summary statement with what he calls a systematic overview of the theonomic conception of the role of civil government in terms of Christ's rule as king. and of his inscripturated laws. And there were 12 points under that. If you have that book, No Other Standard, that's, I think, a pretty fair summary of the position. Now, I won't go through all of those. He starts off just by affirming the infallibility and inspiration of the scriptures. He says that the law is not a means of justification, never has been. The word of the Lord, he says, and this is the third thing, is the sole supreme and unchallengeable standard for the actions and attitudes of all men in all areas of life. And then in number four he says, our obligation to keep the law of God cannot be judged by any extra scriptural standard, that is, your own feelings or your sensibilities about what is good and right. Fifth, he says, we should presume that Old Testament standing laws continue to be morally binding in the New Testament unless they are rescinded or modified by further revelation. And that, perhaps, is the key point on this particular thesis. I don't think I'll read the rest of those, but I would rather refer you to them. But this summary gives, I think, the central points of emphasis in theonomic ethics, the context, which is the foundational authority of the scriptures and salvation by grace, the goal, that is, to develop a consistently Christian world and life view in accordance with the word of God, and the governing hermeneutical principle, which would be the covenant and covenantal theology. Now, as I said, instead of going through the entire corpus of theonomic literature, I simply want to set forth the essence of the position as I understand it. and then say a few words about the controversial focus of the thesis, and then finally address a few questions that are very often, and I think most often, asked about the position. First then, what does the term theonomy mean and imply? In my understanding, the term theonomy, as it references an ethical theory, simply means that the Word of God in its entirety is authoritative for all of life in all places and throughout all of history. Now that is based upon four basic assumptions or presuppositions. First, the unchanging character of God. God's word is the revelation of himself to us. His law is the expression of his own perfect nature. It shows us what God is like. It reveals the holiness and righteousness and wisdom and justice of God. Apart from his law, we wouldn't know what holiness is. We wouldn't know what he is like, in fact. And so to despise the word of God is equivalent to despising God himself. As the psalmist says in Psalm 138 verse 2, I will worship toward thy holy temple and praise thy name for thy loving kindness and thy truth, for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. The word of God is identical to his name and his own being, and he will not be divorced from his revelation. So the relationship of the law of God to his nature also explains why the law as a standard of morality is basically unchanged. Being the transcript of God's nature, it cannot change unless God himself changes. His attitude towards sin is the same, therefore, in all ages, regardless of the particular culture in which that sin crops up or is expressed. Second presupposition is this, the fact that God is God means that he alone has the right to determine what is good and evil. When Adam and Eve rebelled against God, they were rebelling at precisely this point. They wanted to be like Him, and that meant determining for themselves what was good and evil, not having anyone to tell them what was right and wrong, but claiming the right to be able to do that for themselves. That was their attempt to be like God. Jesus says that the Word of God is truth. And it's important to note that he doesn't say the Word of God is true. It is true, but it is itself truth. That is, it is the sole repository of infallible truth. God's Word is therefore the only standard of good and evil, right and wrong, truth and error, the only infallible standard that we have. The third assumption or presupposition is this, the complete sufficiency of the Word of God as a rule of life. for all areas of life. God is the ruler of the whole earth, not simply of the church or of the family or of the individual. His word therefore applies to all of creation and not just to a part of that creation. It is not church-oriented or family-oriented or even oriented toward one's private life only. It is life-oriented. It covers all areas all areas of life and applies to all areas of life and thought. God's Word according to Paul equips us, as Dr. Adams reminded us this afternoon, for every good work. The fourth presupposition is the moral law of God is universally binding. Since it is God's Word to man, it applies to all men regardless of who they are and what they do or where they live. All mankind having been created by God are under his law and this of course is proven ultimately by the fact that all men will stand before the judgment seat of God and they will be judged in terms of his law and word as our Savior said because the law comes from God it is binding upon all men created by God and not just upon Christians and this includes those nations and peoples who did not have the privilege of that peculiar special covenant that Israel had that was formed with Israel at Mount Sinai. Israel was the nation that God chose to be the model among the nations, but many of the laws by which he governed Israel were apparently the laws he had given to all men prior to raising up Israel. And when you read the scriptures, you see that there is a great deal of indication that a great many of the laws that will later be encoded at Mount Sinai and written down, were given apparently long before that through Adam and apparently maybe through Noah, but all men knew them and lived in terms of them. I want to go through just a few of these illustrations or instances because it is quite, it seems to me quite striking, especially since many of the things that they seem to be quite well aware of are what we would normally call ceremonial and not moral laws, though that distinction, of course, is one of the disputes in the whole issue. But listen to some of these things. There was apparently and non-inscripturated revelation given to all men, perhaps to Adam and through him to all mankind. And this was followed by people. So for example, the laws regarding sacrifices were known long before the time of Moses, at least some of them. Cain and Abel, Genesis 4, bring sacrifices to the Lord in worship. God had apparently laid out how he was to be approached in terms of sacrifice. as well as the different types of sacrifice. We are told that God was not pleased with Cain, that is with his attitude, but neither was he pleased with his sacrifice. Whereas Abel's sacrifice was pleasing to God, just as Abel himself was pleasing to God. The writer of Hebrews points out that it wasn't merely Abel's heart that was pleasing to God or his attitude. It was rather that he also brought a sacrifice that was pleasing to God. The implication is that God had revealed to men the appropriate sacrifice to bring, but that Cain ignored that revelation of God's will. Later on, you know that Noah built an ark and offered burnt offerings in Genesis chapter eight, which of course, prior to this point, there's been no revelation in the Bible about any burnt offering, but it specifically said that's what Noah offered up. to God. Noah also knew the distinction between clean and unclean animals as God commands him to bring clean animals for sacrifice and talks about the clean and the unclean there but that was long before Moses wrote that law down in Leviticus 11. Abraham knew about the requirement of the tithe and the significance of the tithe. In Genesis 14, he gives tithes to Melchizedek. Jacob also mentions giving the tithe of his possession in Genesis 28. But again, up to this point, as far as we would know from what the Bible says, there's been no indication that God has spoken about tithes in and of itself, but they apparently knew about that already. There's even a non-Israelite priesthood. The most famous non-Israelite priest, of course, was Melchizedek. But we also have mention of Moses' father-in-law, Jethro, who was a priest of the Lord in Midian, not an Israelite. He offers, in fact, burnt offerings in worship of Jehovah because of Jehovah's grace and deliverance of Israel. And the elders of Israel meet with him and commune with him. And so you have a legitimate priesthood that's recognized by God's people as legitimate, but it's not an Israelite priesthood. In fact, it's before the Israelite priesthood has been formed. The laws of restitution were known prior to the giving of the law or the specification of it at Mount Sinai. Jacob protests to Laban in Genesis 31 verse 39 that he did not follow the law that was later written down by Moses in Exodus 22, 13. If it be torn in pieces, then let him bring it for witness that he shall not, that he shall not make it good that which was torn. And Jacob mentions to Laban, I didn't do that. And yet you required of me restitution of the things that were stolen, which of course was, was in fact also required later on by God's law. But apparently there, the point that Jacob is laying is you're not, you didn't follow the law. This has not been just dealing here. Um, the law of the Levite where requiring a brother to raise up seed for his childless dead brother, which is recorded in Deuteronomy 25, was apparently known by Judah. After the death of his son Ur in Genesis 38, he tells his son Onan to go and raise up seed for his brother. And you know the story, Onan refused and God killed him as well. The laws regulating slavery were apparently known and followed. You see this in Jacob's service to Laban again. Even though Jacob was not a slave, Laban sought to treat him as one, requiring six years service for his daughters, seeking to send them away empty-handed, and those things are mentioned by Jacob in Genesis 31, 41, and 42, which reflect, it seems to be Deuteronomy 15, 12, and 13. the law that's given there. Now, you see what you see from these things and other instances that we could point to in scripture is that many of the things that we normally view as unique to Israel were from the beginning, apparently given to all men through Adam or through Noah or somewhere along the line. Now, if one wants to call this knowledge a general revelation, we must acknowledge that it was general, not in the sense that it was nonspecific. Rather, it was general in that it was given to all mankind. And this general revelation is surprisingly specific at points. The nations then were, because of being in Adam and then again in Noah, were in covenant with God. They were given commandments to live by, but they broke that covenant and forsook the Lord and his law. And thus Israel was established by God to remind the nations of what they had forfeited in turning away from him. Not the least of which of their, of the benefits they gave up was the wisdom and justice of God that was displayed in his laws. And again, think of Deuteronomy four in light of this, if in fact I'm correct in the, in the understanding of these passages, then Deuteronomy 4 makes even more sense to me, seems to me. Listen again to what God says in Deuteronomy 4, 5 through 8. Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the Lord my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. Keep therefore and do them, for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations. which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the Lord our God is in all things, that we may call upon him for? And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous, as all this law which I set before you this day? It would provoke the nations, as it were, to an envy of the wisdom and righteousness that Israel had and its laws that they did not have reflected in their laws and in their covenant-breaking state, in their rebellious condition. Now, for this reason, God held the nations accountable for not keeping his laws, and he brought judgments upon them because they forsook his laws. So Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed for their lawless deeds. they rejected the laws of God in regard to marriage and his prohibitions of course against sodomy and this brought God's judgment down upon them and God talks about the Canaanites in the same way after in Leviticus chapter 18 that's a chapter where you have a numerous provisions in regard to proper sexual relations And it's very detailed in regard to what are called sometimes the laws of consanguinity. And there you have who can marry who and who can have sexual relations with whom and it then goes on to forbid sodomy. as well. And so in there though, God in the middle of this chapter explains why he is casting out the Canaanites from the land of Canaan and replacing them with his people. He says to his people, this is Leviticus 18, 24, defile not ye yourselves in any of these things. And in the context, he's speaking about the laws of sexual morality within the family relation and sodomy and homosexuality. For in all these, the nations are defiled which I cast out before you, and the land is defiled. Therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomited out her inhabitants. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations, neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you. for all these abominations have the men of the land done which were before you and the land is defiled and the land is vomiting out the Canaanites because they didn't abide by these laws that God is now giving to Israel you see the implication of that at least it seems to me an implication that's legitimately drawn is that they should have done those things and if they should have done them obviously they would have known about them so God cast them out because they didn't follow these things according to what he says. There were obviously laws that were unique to Israel as a covenanted nation. The laws concerning, of course, the tabernacle and the temple, the biblical system and peculiar laws regarding the land and separation. But apparently many of the other laws given to Israel were binding on the other nations as well, teaching apparently the universal application of the law to all the world, all of God's creatures. And that may be another reason why God can say in Proverbs 1434, righteousness exalted a nation, any nation. It doesn't say righteousness exalts Israel. He says, righteousness will exalt any nation, but sin is a reproach to any people. Now, this seems to be very significant to me because the terms righteousness and sin must be defined by a particular standard. What is righteousness? And conversely, what is sin? Well, there has to be some standard by which a nation can be looked upon and then judged as either righteous or wicked. There must be a universal standard which a nation can follow or depart from. And righteousness is commonly in the reformed tradition understood as being what the Bible says, what God lays down as requirements for man. So here we're told that if a nation is to be exalted, it must follow the word of God and avoid sin. The law of, of God applies in that sense to all nations. And we're here, we're talking about those things that are universal, not the things that are unique. Obedience will bring blessing. Disobedience will bring judgment along these same lines. Think of Proverbs 16 verse 12. It is an abomination to Kings, any Kings, not just Israel's Kings. It's an abomination to kings to commit wickedness, for the throne is established by righteousness. Once again, you have to ask the question, how would a non-Israelite king be judged as a righteous or a wicked king? And again, the righteous standard of God's law must apply to every nation and kingdom under heaven. And so for this reason, David has no qualms in Psalm 2 to call all the kings of the earth to bow the knee and serve the Lord. and follow him. And he calls upon them all to follow the law and embrace it. Indeed, he foresees the day when the nation shall return to the Lord and learn his laws again, Psalm 72. In verses 10 and 11, the kings of Tarshish and of the Isles shall bring presents. The kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts. Yea, all kings shall fall down before him. All nations shall serve him. And those sorts of sentiments are mentioned throughout the Psalms and the prophets. Isaiah prophesies in Isaiah 2 verses 2 to 4, it shall come to pass in the last days that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established on top of the mountains. and shall be exalted above the hills, and all the nations shall flow into it." I think the house of the Lord is symbolic of the church. It's the fact that people are going to hear the word proclaimed from the church. They're going to respond to that word and flow in to the church and there they're going to learn. But listen to what it says. And many people will go and say, come ye and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob. And he will teach us of his ways and we will walk in his paths. For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." The picture of the blessing universal. One of the blessings of that will be that the people of the world, as they're brought in by the gospel through the Great Commission, will learn the ways of God and walk in those ways. And apparently that the nations themselves will follow the word of God. The law is universally binding because it is the law of the God of the universe. Now, perhaps this is not so far too controversial to you. I hope it's not too controversial to you. If it is, we may need to talk a lot more than we're going to talk. But what is the controversial point of theonomy? Well, the focal point of the controversy is, of course, how theonomic ethics applies in the realm of civil justice. No one contends that an individual is freed from the obligation to obey God's law. No reformed Christian certainly contends that. We are bound to keep the commandments of God, the commandments that Christ has given us, as an expression of our love for him. We don't earn any righteousness by obeying, but we do it because we love him. If you love me, he says, you will keep my commandments. Paul talks about love being defined as fulfilling the law and of course prior to that this is Romans 13 verses 8 through 10. Oh no man anything he says but to love one another. What does that mean? He says for he who loves another has fulfilled the law, the commandments You shall not commit adultery. You shall not commit murder. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness. You shall not covet. And if there's any other commandment, it's all summed up in this saying, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore, love is the fulfillment of the law. When you keep the law, when you're walking in obedience to that law, you are showing and manifesting love for God and love for your neighbor as well. And John then describes love for the Lord in the same terms in 1 John 5 verses 2 and 3. By this, he says, we know we love the children of God when we love God and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments, and his commandments are not burdensome. Clearly, the individual is bound to keep the law of God. No one quarrels with that, nor does anyone suggest that the family is free to live contrary to the law of God. The father is a minister of God, a representative of Christ in the home, and his authority exists, however, it's a real authority, but it exists only in the Lord, within the boundaries of the word of God. No father has the right to rule in a way contrary to God's word. The laws of his home and those things he commands of his children are to be in accordance with the word that God has given. If they are contrary to that word, they may be safely and lawfully ignored. The father is a minister of God in his home and thus his authority is strictly confined to that given to him by God in his word. This is also plainly true in the church and no one controverts it. The elders are ministers of God, and they are forbidden, therefore, to lord it over the flock, their brethren. They're to teach the word of God, not their own opinions. They're to rule in accordance with the word of God, not according to their whims. If they teach anything contrary to God's word, their teaching is not to be received. and they may be disciplined for teaching falsely. If they rule in any way contrary to God's Word, their decisions are subject to review and reversal, and no one is bound to follow them. Why? Because their ministers of God and their authority exist only within the bounds of God's Word. Now you see the contention of theonomy is that what is true in the home, what's true of the individual and what's true in the home and what's true in the church is also true in regard to the civil magistrate. Paul's words in Romans 13 indicate this. The magistrate is called the minister of God. In verse four, he is appointed by God to serve as God's deacon, God's representative. And this helps us to understand the role of the magistrate under God. Basically, God requires the ruler to do one thing. He is to punish evildoers and protect the righteous. He is to provide an environment where God's people are able to live in a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. Now, I use the language of first Timothy two verses one and two, where Paul tells Timothy what should be prayed in regard to the magistrate pray for Kings, he says, and pray specifically for those. He says, pray for Kings and all her in authority. And specifically for this, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. Now he talks about the benefits of godly rule, but the point, the implication is that the King will behave himself. that the magistrate will do what he ought to do and thereby provide us an environment where we can grow in conformity to Christ, build our families up and our churches up and live faithfully to the glory of God. That's the job of the magistrate. The job of the magistrate is to preserve a climate which is conducive to the growth of godliness and righteousness so that citizens can live and bring every sphere of life into conformity to the word of God. Now in order for this to take place Rulers are to have two concerns, the administration of justice and the administration of defense. Of these two defense is secondary. You say, well, wait a minute, actually you say, well, it's secondary, not because it can be ignored or because it's unimportant. And the fact that we live in a world of sinful men, uh, make the ability to defend yourself a necessity. But, and I don't say it's secondary because it's unimportant. I say it merely to say it, to affirm that righteousness is more important than defense. God promises his protection to the righteous, but the wicked will be destroyed no matter how imposing their defense. And for this reason, the priority for magistrates is always to be the maintenance of justice and righteousness within their dominion. If a state ignores this, it may have the strongest military capability that the world has ever known and still fall, as we have seen. Righteousness alone is able to exalt a nation and nothing else, not wealth, not natural resources, not anything else. Nothing can make up for the absence of righteousness. Proverbs 10 verse two says treasures of wickedness profit nothing, but righteousness delivers from death. It delivers from death individually and nationally corporately. It is righteousness that's preeminent. The nation that doesn't place primary emphasis on righteousness will be destroyed without an enemy. So for this reason, when the duty of the civil magistrate is mentioned, the emphasis falls upon his obligation to maintain justice and righteousness within the nation. This must always receive the preeminence in regard to the magistrate. We do not honor the, if we don't honor the Lord, no army can save us. The magistrate is the, as the minister of God is to show forth God's righteousness by maintaining just laws. Thus justice and righteousness are the foundation of the King's throne. of the foundation of government. The more faithfully the magistrate maintains righteousness, the more prosperous the country becomes. He becomes a terror to the wicked and an encouragement to the righteous. According to what Paul says in Romans 13, verse three says for rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. If thou then wilt not be, if thou then not be, wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have the praise of the same, for he is a minister of God to thee for good. The writer of Proverbs shows that the godly ruler encourages holiness and righteousness. So in Proverbs 14 verse 35, the king's favor is toward a wise servant, but his wrath is against him that causes shame. The righteous King loves that one who loves righteousness and shows favor to him. In Proverbs 16, verse 13, righteous lips are the delight of Kings and they love him that speaketh right. He that loves, loveth puritive heart and has grace on his lips. The King shall be his friend. Proverbs 21, 22, verse 11. That's the way a godly King rules. He rules knowing that the most valuable resource he has are those who love purity of heart, who love righteousness. And therefore he encourages righteousness. And conversely, he becomes a terror to the wicked by bringing just punishment upon them. And in doing so, he shows forth God's righteous anger against evil doers. This is what Paul again in Romans 13 verse four, he says, but if thou do that, which is evil, Be afraid, for he, that is the magistrate, beareth not the sword in vain, for he is a minister of God, a revenger, to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. He is God's representative to execute God's wrath against all those who do evil. Now think about it. The standard of good and evil must be established by God if it is to be his wrath that is to be executed. So, if in fact men can set up their own standards of righteousness, how do we know that that's God's wrath being applied? If it's God's wrath, it ought to be God's law that indicates or that determines what an evildoer is. The magistrate is to be a minister of God's wrath, being a minister of God. The power to execute and punish evil workers is given in order that evil may be discouraged and that righteousness be promoted. Rulers are appointed by God for this very purpose. Of course, Peter in first Peter 2, 14 says, uh, talking about giving honor, he says, give honor to governors as under them that are sent that is appointed or commissioned by him. That's gone to punish evil doers. and for the praise of them that do well. The king who sits on the throne of judgment scatters evil with his eyes. The king that sits on the throne of justice scatters evil. That's Proverbs 20. Verse eight, the King, as the minister of God is to be the enemy of all evil. His administration of justice is thus a terror to evil doers where evil is not condoned. It will diminish. That is, we're talking about externally. Well, obviously you can't be sanctified by law or legislation or a godly King punishing evil doers, but it will discourage evil doers. Now it should be noted that the Bible and the theonomic thesis does not give the magistrate the right to judge theology or determine heresy. Dr. Bonson notes this, and this is from By What Standard, he says, what the civil magistrate is called to punish is blasphemy, public cursing of God, not errors in doctrine. In the Old Testament, the task of kings was not the same as priests who were responsible for orthodoxy. Even as in the New Testament, the keys of the kingdom are separated from the coercive sword of the state. There is no biblical warrant for thinking that the civil magistrate has either the competence or the divinely given authority to judge heretics or resolve theological disputes between different Christian schools of thought. Now you see the problem of an intrusive magistrate, that is a ruler who seeks to get his hands into everything and try to govern every area of life, is exclusively that of the non-theonomist. The one who denies the obligation of the magistrate to abide by biblical strictures. Without restrictions, without the restrictions placed upon him by God's word, there is no protection against tyranny. At least no principal appeal you can make against tyranny. There is nothing to prevent a magistrate from seeking to declare orthodoxy and heresy, or to distinguish between acceptable belief and what is unacceptable, or acceptable speech and what is unacceptable, as we, to our great chagrin, are learning now. Right? It is no longer a sin to speak sinfully in public. It's a crime now, which God never gave the magistrate a right to do. unless there was actual criminal speech, slander and all that. The problem of intrusive magistrate is we are protected against it by the theonomic thesis. Given this role of the magistrate, this leads then to a couple of obvious implications. If the magistrate is to ensure justice, he must conform the laws of the land to the word of God. How can he punish evildoers and praise those who do good if he ignores the standard of good and evil? There is no way to determine who is an evil doer if you ignore the standard which God has given us to distinguish good from evil. The only way he can be a terror to evil works is to know what evil works are and this he can never know apart from the holy standard God sets forth in his word. How can a magistrate know that his ministration of the sword is not in vain. How can he know what is proper in a just punishment and distinguish that from an unjust and harsh punishment or a too lenient punishment? The only sure and safe path that he can follow is that outlined in the word of God. We see here, then, that the magistrate's authority is ministerial and not legislative in this sense. He has no right, then, to make laws that are contrary to God's word. He is a minister in that he has been given the word, and he is now to apply it to his people in appropriate ways, appropriate to the culture and to their situation. But to apply that word because then he can know that he is ruling justly. He is to take the law that he has been given and apply it to the people. Now here are some protests that Israel was a unique nation unlike any other before or since and thus it cannot be replicated. And of course, theonomists would agree with that completely. There is no desire to replicate Israel. It is an impossibility and anybody who thinks that is a fool and should be openly acknowledged as one. The disagreement, of course, comes over the application of penal sanctions of the judicial law given to Israel. Theonomists would contend that justice and just punishments cannot be determined by man. If the magistrate is to administer justice, he must be sure that his punishments, just as much as his statutes, are neither too severe nor too lenient. How can he know the just punishment for various crimes if the judgments of God are rejected? Israel was unique, but crime was not the thing that made it unique. Nor the need of just punishment. That's not what made Israel unique either. Crime is something that every culture has. Rape and sodomy and kidnapping and thievery are crimes that are present in every culture in all periods of history. The problem with dealing with these crimes justly was not unique to Israel. That is a common thing to all societies and all peoples. The penalties that God ordained in Israel must be viewed, then, as the standard of justice for all nations. Thus, Dr. Bonson notes, and again, this is a rather long quote, but I think it's important. Theonomy's point is that God does not have a double standard of justice in society. Rape is wrong, whether in Israel, Nineveh, or New York. And punishing the rapist too leniently or too harshly is wrong for magistrates, whether in Israel, Nineveh, or New York. If God has not revealed objective standards of justice for crime and punishment, then magistrates cannot genuinely be avengers of God's wrath against evildoers. They could only avenge their human anger against those who displease them without any assurance that genuine evildoers are receiving a just recompense. In that case, the sword would truly be wielded in vain, and good people would have a real reason to fear. The criminal standards of the Old Testament are God's objective standard of public justice, prescribing for every transgression its just recompense of reward, according to Hebrews 2 verse 2, and executing only those who do things worthy of death. What we observe in scripture, Dr. Bonson says, therefore, is that the unique typological value and holiness of Israel's kings and law did not cancel out the common standards of justice between Israel and the nations as expressed in the law. Now it's also objected, in addition to this first objection, that this view does not take into account the fact that contrary to modern nations, In Israel, every citizen was circumcised and thus was not only a member of the state, but a member of the church or the covenant community. Dr. Bonson actually challenges this assumption by noting that not only were women, but sojourners were citizens, those in the conventional sense of the word, and yet neither were circumcised. He says, and again another quote, this alleged merger of church and state in Old Testament Israel is not only disproved by the citizenship status of women, even if it be deemed somehow a second class citizenship, It is all the more overturned by the status of uncircumcised sojourners in Israel. They were a significant part of Hebrew society. A mixed multitude had originally come up out of Egypt, and Gentile foreigners continued to be assimilated throughout Israel's history, numbering 153,600 at the time of Solomon, some playing important roles in civil and religious affairs. In Joshua 8, when Israel acknowledged its covenantal constitution as a nation, following the instructions of Deuteronomy 27, the blessings and curses were pronounced from God's law on all the assembly of Israel, verse 35, which included the sojourners, verse 33. They stood constituted with the nation. Scripture is emphatic that the sojourners were to be required to follow the same civil duties and to be granted the same civil privileges as the home-born Jew. There was not to be a double standard, but rather one law for the home-born and the sojourner. Were they citizens in the conventional sense? Yes, he says. Now he goes on to observe that sojourners had the same rights and duties as other citizens. They were prohibited from idolatry and blasphemy, Sabbath-breaking, disrespecting authorities, offering child sacrifice, and engaging in sexual abominations. They could acquire property. They were protected from wrongdoing, oppression, injustice in the courts, and from being defrauded. The cities of refuge were open to them. They had the privilege of gleaning. They were to be treated kindly. If foreigners were willing to abide by the laws of Israel, in other words, they were free to live in Israel. The fact that they were not circumcised did not give them an exemption from the laws of Israel, nor did it deny them the protection of those laws. So, in and of itself, this objection, I think, really doesn't discourage any modern nation from following the general equity of Israel's laws, given the reality of Israel. Now, it is further objected that the laws of Israel were so peculiar to the unique condition of Israel they cannot properly be applied to any other nation that does not have the distinctives which Israel had. In other words, since the peculiar laws given under the Mosaic legislation cannot be applied to any other nation, we're told, there's no infallible guidance. In other words, if the judicial law of Moses cannot be considered as legitimate or applicatory, then we do have a number of problems. For example, how can the Christian Sabbath be protected publicly? How can we distinguish between manslaughter and murder? How could we authoritatively forbid the marriage of a daughter to her widowed father? How could we discipline for bestiality? What would be the proper compensation for negligence or injury? And these are just a few of the questions that could be raised. If the Mosaic legislation must be ignored, there is no standard by which we can say that any of these things are wrong, Absolutely, far less determine the proper punishment and judicial remedy. Thus, the theonomist would conclude the ruler must seek to apply God's law if we're to have justice. Now the second thing that is assumed here is that the ruler is a minister of God's justice, has no authority to do anything else but protect the citizens from lawlessness. He cannot lawfully seek to extend his authority in areas that God has not given him. If he does so, he seeks to be like God, sovereign over all areas of life, and not a minister of God with distinctly limited authority. This is the significance or one of the things that I think is important about Jesus' statement to the Jews when he said, render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, but render to God the things that are God's. And some have said, well, you see that shows that he acknowledged the authority of Caesar. Really? Do you think Caesar would have been happy with that statement? Would he see the point here is Jesus saying, listen, Caesar has the right to tax us. That's a God-given right. The ruler, the magistrate does have the right to tax. Pay the tax. You render to Caesar the things that legitimately are given to Caesar by God. But you don't render to Caesar things that are God's. The problem here was Caesar was claiming to be God. This was an indictment of the ungodly Roman government, not an affirmation of its legitimacy. He is saying, and that's why, by the way, Caesar viewed his enemies to be Christians. not religiously, but politically. They were charged with treason, not with their faith, except as their faith provoked treason in Caesar's eyes. When the magistrate ignores God's word, he neglects his main duty, the maintenance of justice, and engages in futile experiments in social meddling. And thus we have the phenomenon in our day of a state that seeks to control every area of life and being utterly incompetent to do that which specifically God commanded to do. They are very good at controlling the price of milk, however. And regulating the ingredients that go on a pizza. But they can't catch a thief. And if they do, they don't know what to do with him. So a thief steals my car and destroys it in a wreck. And people say he must pay his debt to society. But it wasn't society's car. It was my car. Oh, but he has to go to prison and pay his debt to society. Well, wait a minute, now I got to pay for him when I'm still out of car. Now, you see, if the magistrate can punish thievery in any way he pleases, you have no grounds to make a complaint. If he doesn't have to look to the Mosaic Rules of Restitution, then you may not like it, but it's perfectly right to do this. Well, there are a number of questions that I need to turn to that arise in this light of the theonomic thesis that need to be addressed, and I will try to address them rather quickly here. Does theonomy teach justification by works? The answer is no. And I don't think that you could point to any, at least as far as I know, no writings of the theonomist hold any position contrary to the biblical doctrine of salvation by grace through faith and justification by faith alone. And it's probably well to point out also that theonomy does not relegate the work of redemption, personal piety, the work of the church to a secondary status, or at least it should not. Anyone who's a theonomist should not do that, if they do, they're wrong. It's not secondary to societal and political reform. I think the reform, the impression, I think, that the Theonomist has given is that, and I think it's a wrong impression. Political reform is merely the outgrowth of the blessing of God upon the preaching of the gospel as the gospel works, like Paul says in 2 Timothy 3, 16 and 17, teaching and convicting and correcting and training in righteousness. Then we're going to learn how to live in every area, do all of our jobs to the glory of God. Does theonomy teach that the laws of Israel ought to be imposed upon America? And the answer is no. But theonomy does teach that there was an equity in these laws that ought to be followed. Israel was unique in the history of the world. No other nation has been in covenant with God like Israel was. And that means that there were things unique about Israel that were not true and are not true of any nation. But having said that, we need to note two things. Israel had wise laws. Obviously, they were the ones God ordained, so they had to be wise. Other nations were to learn from Israel how to have a just society, and a righteous society, and a blessed society, Deuteronomy 4 tells us. Since Israel's laws were given by God himself, they were perfectly just, even in their punishments. And thus, they were not harsh, or unloving, or mean-spirited, or anything else. They are not laughable, unreasonable, or tyrannical. And those who say that they are, are mocking God. The American Presbyterian missionary and theologian Samuel Henry Kellogg, who lived in the 19th century, 1839 to 1899, makes this observation about the laws that God gave to Israel and it's in his commentary on Leviticus and in fact the chapter 20 of the commentary. He says, assuredly one cannot suppose that God judged of a crime with undue severity and if not is not then Christendom as it were summoned by this penal code of the theocracy after making all due allowance for different conditions of society to revise its estimate of the moral gravity of these and other offenses. In these days of continually progressive relaxation of the laws regulating the relations of the sexes, this seems indeed to be one of the chief lessons from this chapter of Leviticus. Namely, that in God's sight, sins against the seventh commandment are not the comparative trifles which much overcharitable and easygoing morality imagines, but crimes of the first order of heinousness. Let us not miss of taking the lesson by imagining that this law was for Israel, but not for other peoples. The contrary is affirmed in this very chapter, verses 23 and 24, where we are reminded that God visited his heavy judgments upon the Canaanitish nations precisely for this very thing, their doing of these things which are in this law of holiness forbidden. Our modern democracies, English, American, French, German, or whatever they be, would do well to pause in their progressive repudiation of the law of God in many social questions and heed this solemn warning for despite the unbelief of multitudes the Holy One still governs the world and it is certain that he will never abdicate his throne of righteousness to submit any of his laws to the sanction of a popular vote. To view the statutes of Israel as horribly unjust and harsh is nothing less than charging God with injustice and harshness. If God says that homosexuality, adultery, the rebellious son under certain circumstances are worthy of death, who are we to say that that's too harsh? Are we more compassionate than God? Are we more just or do we have a higher sense of justice than he? The answer, of course, I think is evident. We must secondly give ourselves to the study of the laws of God as He revealed them. Many of the problems that men have over the laws of Israel founded in a lack of understanding of the laws and a lack of care in reading them. And I think that's true, by the way, also of some theonomists. They read carelessly. And I may be guilty of that myself from time to time, but we do need to pay careful attention to what these laws say. For example, it seems to me that the only crime that requires capital punishment is murder. And that is so because of the provision of Numbers 35, Numbers 35, 30, and 31. Whoever kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the testimony of witnesses, but one witness is not sufficient testimony against a person for the death penalty. Moreover, you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death." Now notice the thing, it says, you shall take no ransom for the murderer. Now you see, there are many other crimes that also were worthy of death, but apparently this statement here says, Why, if there was no alternative punishment, why would the statement be made, you shall take no ransom for the murderer? You see, it seems the implication is that other crimes were potentially capital, depending upon the circumstances, but they weren't required to bring down capital punishment. Sometimes a ransom would be in order and lawful and just and proper. Apparently some leeway then was given depending upon the circumstances and the nature of the crime itself. This may have been one of the factors in Joseph's mind when he was confronted with Mary's apparent infidelity. Notice that the text says that he being a righteous man, determined to put her away secretly. In other words, he's not saying, oh, I know the law requires her to be stoned, but I don't like that law, so I don't think I'll do it. That would be an unrighteous thing if, in fact, the law required it. Rather than seeking some kind of public punishment or stoning, as Israel was allowed to do under the Roman government, as Stephen is witness and others witness, rather than having that, he, as a righteous man, determined to put her away secretly. Further, let it be remembered that the Confession states it is the general equity of the law and not the specific law itself that is binding. Thus, laws commonly referred to as case laws were illustrative and would not be required in all their specifics in other cultures and times. The wall around the roof is the obvious one that would not be necessary, but maintaining safe property is. According to Dr. Bonson, the case laws provide paradigm instantiations of the principles or summary laws. Only the principles, however, are morally binding for all times. The case law illustrate how the more general laws, the law of love, the Ten Commandments, which is a summary of the moral law, not the total of the moral law. the golden rule, all these general rules of love and law, how are they applied in a society? Well, these case laws illustrate some of the ways that they are applied. It's not always easy to determine general equity of the particular laws. There are many problems, it seems to me, on this. But, theonomy insists there is a general equity that ought to be applied. Does theonomy condone vigilante action? The answer is no. And I don't want to go into that much further. If you have a question, you can ask it. But no, it does not. Does theonomy advocate the stoning of small children? No. It does, however, affirm the justice of God in regard to the law of rebellious sons. As was mentioned, the only illustration we have of that is Deuteronomy 21, 18 to 21, where it says a man If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and who, when they have chastened him, will not heed them, then his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders of his city, to the gate of his city. And they shall say to the elders of his city, this son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey our voice. He is a glutton and a drunkard. And then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you should put away the evil from among you. Now you see it's important to look at, that's one of the laws that needs to be looked at carefully. That's a rather extreme case of rebellion. Mom and dad are the ones witnessing against him. And they call him a glutton and a drunkard. Not normally the sins of a three year old. The situation is obviously quite unusual, and some have said this would never have been, if only this instance is all we have, and it's likely that all the other 18 and 19 and 20-year-olds thought, I'm not doing that, that's for sure. Whatever he did, I ain't going to do it. Enough of that. Does theonomy advocate the overthrow of unbiblical civil government? The answer is no. Theonomy advocates, or at least it should. I mean, again, it is very difficult to know what some people who say that they're theonomists are, like kind of in the 17th century, what a Puritan was. Well, who knew? I mean, everybody claimed, a lot of people claimed that who didn't hold those central tenets of Puritanism. Well, in the same way, no, theonomy advocates reformation, not revolution. Peaceful reformation is always to be the goal of the Christian. To trust governmental coercion and political power to bring salvation is inherently pagan, not Christian. In fact, it's a sin that many evangelicals are committing because they hang all their hopes on who gets to be elected president. It's a sin of idolatry and that's why we're being judged. you need to come to the point where you realize if God had wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates. Obviously, obviously the laws of our land would never be conformed to scripture unless we had a huge revival and then great instruction afterwards where people actually began to love the word and see the wisdom of the word of God and want to conform the laws there and that's how it would happen so the emphasis on theonomy rightly understood is on the great commission and on the teaching of the preaching of the word and bringing about reformation in worship first and foremost where we learn to live you see if we don't worship correctly we're not going to live correctly so Really, the emphasis should be there, even though I confess it is not like it ought to be. Is theonomy triumphalistic? That's a hard one to answer because it depends on what you mean by triumphalistic. But does theonomy ignore the fact that God has ordained suffering for his people? And the answer is no. Indeed, suffering is unavoidable in this world. But what does that have to do with determining the proper standards of justice? Ultimately, nothing. In fact, suffering, God says, is a blessing and, in fact, furthers the kingdom. Does theonomy deny pluralism? The answer to that depends on how the term pluralism is being used. If the term is merely being used to imply religious liberty in the historic sense, then theonomy would not oppose it. But historically, remember, in this country, religious liberty has not meant freedom to exercise any religion whatsoever. but freedom to exercise Christianity in all of its various forms. All Christian denominations were allowed liberty, but anti-Christian or anti-biblical cults were not allowed to practice their beliefs publicly. Thus, the Mormons were not free to practice the precepts of Joseph Smith, which involved polygamy. His followers had to leave the country in order to practice their convictions, and they did. They went to Utah, which was not a state. But they were not allowed to practice that here. We did not believe anything that contradicted God's word was not allowed. The Westminster Confession, larger catechism question number 108, recognizes the right of the magistrate to disapprove, detest, and oppose all false worship, as well as to remove all monuments of idolatry. Therefore, if pluralism means that the magistrate must recognize all cults and forms of religious commitments as equal to Christianity, then if pluralism implies that that it is beyond the legitimate role of the magistrate to protect the citizens from idolatry and paganism, then not only theonomy, but the historic reform faith would stand against it. God's law does not authorize the magistrate to judge the hearts of men or to punish unbelief as such, but it does authorize the magistrate to protect the people from idolatry. Satanic cults who practice human sacrifice should not be allowed freedom of worship in this country or any country. To advocate a thoroughgoing pluralism is equivalent to endorsing polytheism and would force one to give equal protection to Satanism and all other forms of heathenism as we are now seeing our government being pushed to the consistency of its profession. Pure pluralism is blasphemy against the true God. And then lastly, and I think my time is up, is theonomy reformed? And my answer is, of course it is. Why would I agree with it if it wasn't? That's the pro-hominem argument, the ad hominem. Well, I'm joking, but only a little. I think that there is historic evidence that the Reformed tradition endorses the concept of biblical law as the pattern for civil law. This was an idea at least endorsed in its broad principles by Butzer, Beza, Calvin, and his sermons on Deuteronomy. Heinrich Bullinger, who was the author of the Second Helvetic Confession, upholds what might be called a theonomic interpretation Of course, these are not categories they were thinking in, so I'm speaking broadly. The English reformers, Hooper, Latimer, Beacon, who studied under Latimer, the Scottish reformer, John Knox. Many of the English Puritans affirmed this thesis in its broad principles, Cartwright, Perkins, Barrow, Owen, Shepard, Cotton, whose Moses and his judicials became the foundation for the legal code of the Massachusetts body of liberties. George Gillespie, Samuel Rutherford, preeminently among the Scots, who were delegates of the Westminster Assembly, which drafted Chapter 19-4 of the Confession, and the larger Catechism, which often refers to the case laws as authoritative. The Presbyterians of the last century, Kellogg, A.Hodge, R.L. Dabney, Thornwool who may be said in broadly speaking to hold a theonomic ethic. Thornwool proposed the memorial remember to the General Assembly which called upon the Confederate Congress to declare itself a distinctly Christian nation following the laws of Christ. Though I don't agree with everything the prominent theonomists teach, neither can I see this issue is something that should cause disruption and division and some of the animosity that has been provoked. It's a great grief to me that this has caused the kind of animosity that it has caused and the mistrust on both sides. I think it's grievous. The issue, as you would expect, is rather simple to me. If God's word is sufficient, if God's word is infallible, our infallible rule of faith in life, the only way we can know if we are living in a manner that pleases God is by following that word. It's the only way I can know if I'm a faithful businessman, or teacher, or preacher, or husband, or father, or doctor, or lawyer, or butcher, or baker, or Indian chief, or legislator. How can a legislator know if his laws are just if he doesn't follow God's word? What standard can we use that is trustworthy and will assure us that our laws are just and right? How do we know that our judicial punishments are just and not harsh or too lenient? The only way I know is to follow God's word. And if this is theonomy, then I have to say I don't see anything wrong with it, though it may be mistaken at points. Theonomy seeks at bottom to establish the scriptures as the sole standard of faith in life. It seeks to uphold the Bible as the rule of public as well as private morality. It seeks to acknowledge the supremacy of Christ over all areas of life and thought. And it is to be hoped that the Evangelical and Reformed Church will give more serious consideration and discussion and debate and critique so that if this is, it can be refined where it is an error and misjudged, I hope that it will give more to it in the next 25 years than it has in the past 25 years. That cannot but help us to grow more and more in conformity to Christ and to his word.