Anarcho-Theonomy

What Is "Theonomy"?
By Dr. Greg Bahnsen

1. Jesus My Savior
2. Jesus My Lord
3. Covenant Theology
4. King of Kings

PE180
New Horizons (April, 1994) © Covenant Media Foundation, 800/553-3938

What is "Anarcho-Theonomy?"
Kevin Craig

1. Torah in Our Hearts
2. Dietary Laws
3. Mathew 5:17-20 - "Fulfilled"
4. Anarcho-Theonomy
5. Theonomic Oligarchy
6. Further Reading
7. About the Author

1. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are, in part and in whole, a verbal revelation from God through the words of men, being infallibly true regarding all that they teach on any subject.

See #4 below.

Jesus My Savior

Q. 14. What is sin?
A. Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.

Here are the Catechism's prooftexts:

• Leviticus 5:17. And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.
• James 4:17. Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. 
• 1 John 3:4. Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

"Sin is the transgression of the law."
Sin is a transgression of God's Law ("Theonomy" = "God's Law")
Sin is a transgression of even the smallest jot or tittle of God's Law (Matthew 5:17-20).

The opposite of "sin" is "righteousness."
The opposite of "sinful" is "righteous."
The "righteous" man is the one who is obedient to God's Law.

2. Since the Fall it has always been unlawful to use the law of God in hopes of establishing one's own personal merit and justification, in contrast or complement to salvation by way of promise and faith; commitment to obedience is but the lifestyle of faith, a token of gratitude for God's redeeming grace.

Jesus My Lord

On a recent podcast, J.D. Hall criticized R.J. Rushdoony's slogan, “Justification is by grace through faith; sanctification is by law.” I'll take the bait: check this out. Rushdoony's slogan seems to be Hodge's as well.

3. The word of the Lord is the sole, supreme, and unchallengeable standard for the actions and attitudes of all men in all areas of life; this word naturally includes God's moral directives (law).

4. Our obligation to keep the law of God cannot be judged by any extrascriptural standard, such as whether its specific requirements (when properly interpreted) are congenial to past traditions or modern feelings and practices.

Notice what these principles tell us about the theological and moral character of theonomic ethics. The foundational authority of scripture (#1) and the precious truth of salvation by grace alone (#2) provide the context within which every other theonomic thesis is developed and understood. "Theonomic" ethics is committed to developing an overall Christian world-and-life-view (#3) according to the regulating principle of sola Scriptura (#4) and the hermeneutic of covenant theology (#5). The new and better covenant established by Christ does offer Biblical warrant for recognizing changes in covenantal administration (#6), but not changes in moral standards, lest the divinely revealed ethic be reduced to situationism or relativism -- just one tribal perspective among many in the evolutionary history of ethics (#7). Righteousness and justice, according to Biblical teaching, have a universal character, precluding any double-standard of morality.

I know that YHWH has given you this land and that a great fear of you has fallen on us, so that all who live in this country are melting in fear because of you. ¹⁰ We have heard how YHWH dried up the water of the Red Sea for you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to Sihon and Og, the two kings of the Amorites east of the Jordan, whom you completely destroyed. ¹¹ When we heard of it, our hearts melted in fear and everyone’s courage failed because of you, for YHWH your God is God in heaven above and on the earth below.

Covenant Theology

Jeremiah 31:33

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my torah in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

This passage is quoted by the writer to the Hebrews:

⁸ For finding fault with them, He says,

When Jeremiah prophesied these words, he said God would write His TORAH on the hearts of Christians. Not just so that we would have them memorized, but that we would obey them. How do you think the Hebrews of Jeremiah's day understood this prophecy? Theonomic? How do you think the Hebrews of Jesus' day understood this letter quoting Jeremiah? A repudiation of Jeremiah's Theonomy, or a strengthening of it? Jeremiah's thought is also seen in the prophet Ezekiel:

The Prophets of the New Covenant were Theonomic.

But lets' emphasize the last line in Bahnsen's paragraph:

As Bahnsen puts it in his summary:

6. In regard to the Old Testament law, the New Covenant surpasses the Old Covenant in glory, power, and finality (thus reinforcing former duties). The New Covenant also supersedes the Old Covenant shadows, thereby changing the application of sacrificial, purity, and "separation" principles, redefining the people of God, and altering the significance of the promised land.

Controversy!

Bahnsen says "no more animal sacrifices," but that doesn't comfort many anti-Theonomists. He says the dietary laws are out, but that's not good enough for them. Rushdoony and Bahnsen did not agree on the issue of the dietary laws. Some Theonomists still observe them. So some anti-theonomists accuse [all] Theonomists of being "judaizers." On a recent podcast, J.D. Hall accused Rushdoony of being a "Judaizer," and guilty of "the Galatian heresy." I wonder which is worse, being a "Judaizer" or calling down God's "Anathema" on a Godly Christian man like Rushdoony.

I personally think there is good reason to continue observing the dietary laws. Contrary to Bahnsen's claim, it is not inescapably correct to say that "clean" and "unclean" symbolize the difference between "Jew" and "Gentile," because the clean/unclean categories existed in Noah's day -- before there was "Jew" and "Gentile" -- and still exist (in some sense) in the Apostolic age (verses). Read more.

Was Rushdoony therefore not a "real" Theonomist because he disagreed with Bahnsen on the issue of the dietary laws? Or vice versa? No, because both believed that it was the Bible itself that must tell us what "Theonomy" really is, not theories of "natural law," and we'll have disagreements about what the Bible says, but we'll work through them like Bereans. There are respectable arguments on both sides of these issues. I respect them, even if I don't completely agree with them.

Unfortunately sometimes respect is lacking. Theonomists disagree among themselves, and anti-Theonomists call Theonomists "dangerous," and there's not a lot of Scripture-searching, like the Bereans.

"Better safe than sorry," I say. It's obvious to me that after Christ shed His blood, shedding any other blood in an attempt to make atonement or propitiate the wrath of God is a bad idea. But mixing wool and linen? Maybe there's something to that. If it's still a good idea to "Honor your father and mother" (Ephesians 6:1-3), maybe it's a good idea to ask some questions about the creatures that go along the bottom of the water cleaning up after other fish (if you catch my drift). God isn't arbitrary or stupid. I'll obey a given law unless firmly persuaded otherwise.

Matthew 5:17-20 (KJV)

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to πληρῶσαι.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be γένηται.

There's a lot of heated debate about the meaning of those two Greek words. What do they mean? You don't have to know Greek to figure it out. What Jesus is saying is that He came to create conditions in which the follower of Christ is committed to obeying the law and the prophets, and teaching others to obey them as well. Some anti-theonomists claim that Jesus "fulfilled" God's Law for us, therefore we don't have to keep it (compare Hodge above). Sounds like the Pharisees, who said it was enough to keep their own man-made traditions instead of God's Law. The next verse makes clear what the Greek words mean:

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

"Doing" and "teaching" are not things Jesus came to destroy or to abrogate. He came to fulfill the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, of making a people for Himself who would be heartfelt Theonomists.

I've heard J.D. Hall on more than one video describe Bahnsen's exposition of Matthew 5:17-19 in Theonomy in Christian Ethics as taking up "half the book."  If you have your copy of Bahnsen's book, place one finger at page 39, where Bahnsen begins his exposition of Matthew 5:17-19, and another finger at page 86, where he finishes looking at that passage. Hold all those pages between your thumb and index finger. Does it look like "half the book?" Maybe it seems like "half the book" to anti-theonomists because Bahnsen put "lotsa Greek stuff" in that chapter. (And they probably didn't read the other "half" either.)

Many people think that Theonomists are "Pharisees" and "legalists." But Jesus says His disciples are more righteous (Law-abiding) than those who use God's Word for their own selfish purposes:

20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven

It is one of the biggest anti-Theonomic myths that the Pharisees were pro-nomian. To the contrary, the religious leaders of Jesus' day were "hypocrites," as Jesus repeatedly said. Outwardly they postured as Theonomists, but they were actually committed to evading God's Law, not putting it into practice. The legalistic religious leaders were the enemies of God and the enemies of Theonomy:

Mark 7

⁵ Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?”

⁶ He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

         ‘This people honors Me with their lips,
         But their heart is far from Me.
         ⁷ And in vain they worship Me,
         Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

⁸ For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men —the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”

⁹ He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.¹⁰ For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ ¹¹ But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift to God), ¹² then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, ¹³ making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

Theonomists are not Pharisees. Theonomists are "Bibliolators." They are the New Covenant believers Jeremiah and Ezekiel described.

King of Kings

He shall judge among many people,
and rebuke strong nations afar off;
Micah 4:3

His Word "rebukes" kings now. Presidents, Prime Ministers, and Dictators only wish that this rebuking did not begin until after His Second Coming.

5. We should presume that Old Testament standing laws[note26] continue to be morally binding in the New Testament, unless they are rescinded or modified by further revelation.[note27]

26. Standing law" is used here for policy directives applicable over time to classes of individuals (e.g., do not kill; children, obey your parents; merchants, have equal measures; magistrates, execute rapists), in contrast to particular directions for an individual (e.g., the order for Samuel to anoint David at a particular time and place) or positive commands for distinct incidents (e.g., God's order for Israel to exterminate certain Canaanite tribes at a certain point in history).

27. By contrast, it is characteristic of dispensational theology to hold that Old Covenant commandments should be a priori deemed as abrogated - unless repeated in the New Testament (e.g., Charles Ryrie, "The End of the Law," Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. 124 [1967], pp. 239-242).

7. God's revealed standing laws are a reflection of His immutable moral character and, as such, are absolute in the sense of being non-arbitrary, objective, universal, and established in advance of particular circumstances (thus applicable to general types of moral situations).
8. Christian involvement in politics calls for recognition of God's transcendent, absolute, revealed law as a standard by which to judge all social codes.
9. Civil magistrates in all ages and places are obligated to conduct their offices as ministers of God, avenging divine wrath against criminals and giving an account on the Final Day of their service before the King of kings, their Creator and Judge.
10. The general continuity which we presume with respect to the moral standards of the Old Testament applies just as legitimately to matters of socio-political ethics as it does to personal, family, or ecclesiastical ethics.
11. The civil precepts of the Old Testament (standing 'judicial" laws) are a model of perfect social justice for all cultures, even in the punishment of criminals. Outside of those areas where God's law prescribes their intervention and application of penal redress, civil rulers are not authorized to legislate or use coercion (e.g., the economic marketplace).
12. The morally proper way for Christians to correct social evils which are not under the lawful jurisdiction of the state is by means of voluntary and charitable enterprises or the censures of the home, church, and marketplace - even as the appropriate method for changing the political order of civil law is not violent revolution, but dependence upon regeneration, re-education, and gradual legal reform.

"Theonomic" ethics likewise rejects legal positivism and maintains that there is a "law above the (civil) law" to which appeal can be made against the tyranny of rulers and the anarchy of overzealous reformers alike (#9). Since Jesus Christ is Lord over all (cf. #3), civil magistrates are His servants and owe obedience to His revealed standards for them (#9). There is no Biblically based justification (cf. #5) for exempting civil authorities from responsibility to the universal standards of justice (cf. #7) found in God's Old Testament revelation (#10). Therefore, in the absence of Biblically grounded argumentation which releases the civil magistrate from Old Testament social norms (cf. #5, #6), it follows from our previous premises that in the exercise of their offices rulers are morally responsible to obey the revealed standards of social justice in the Old Testament law (#11). This does not mean, however, that civil rulers have unlimited authority to intrude just anywhere into the affairs of men and societies (# 11 #12); their legitimate sphere is restricted to what God's word has authorized them to do -- thus calling for a limited role for civil government. Finally, Christians are urged to use persuasive and "democratic" means of social reform - nothing like the strong-arm tactics slanderously attributed to the theonomic program (#12).[note28]

28. For example, the main thrust of a widely read article on theonomic ethics by Rodney Clapp in Christianity Today, vol. 31, no. 3 (Feb. 20, 1987), was captured in its title: "Democracy as Heresy." He recklessly accuses theonomists of seeking "the abolition of democracy" (p. 17), when surely Clapp is aware that the word 'democracy' is susceptible to an incredibly wide range of definitions and connotations (e.g., from an institution of direct rule by every citizen without mediating representatives to a governmental procedure where representatives are voted in and out of office by the people, to the simple concepts of majority vote or social equality, etc.). Theonomists are opposed to some of those ideas, but surely not to what is commonly understood by the word: namely, democratic procedures for choosing representatives to rule. Indeed, in reply to Mr. Clapp's inflammatory rhetoric, Dr. Gary North very appropriately pointed out as a historian the irony that it was precisely our Puritan (and theonomic) forefathers who fought for and established this kind of "democracy" in the Western world!

Now here's where we diverge from Bahnsenian or Rushdoonian Theonomy.

Our claim is that God's Law prohibits the formation and maintenance of "the State."
We also believe that God's Law prohibits the violent overthrow of the State.
I guess that makes us "anarcho-pacifists."

Anarcho-Theonomy

Bahnsen says entities calling themselves "the State" or "the government" or "the civil magistrate" are obligated to follow God's Commandments in the Scriptures (including commandments in "The Law and the Prophets"). I agree. I also believe entities calling themselves
     • "La Cosa Nostra" ("Our Thing"),
     • "Yakuza,"
     • "Solntsevskaya Bratva" ("Russian Mafia"),
     • "Sinaloa Cartel," or
     • any of dozens of other similar criminal entities,
are also morally obligated to follow God's Commandments in the Old Testament.

Christians in general -- even non-Theonomists -- have a generally positive view of "the State." Our contention is that the Bible has a generally negative view of the State.

The Bible is an Anarchist Manifesto.

Of course, God works all things -- even evil things -- together for good.

"It is the duty of nations, as subjects of Christ, to take His law as their rule. They are apt to think enough that they take, as their standard of legislation and administration, human reason, natural conscience, public opinion or political expediency. None of these, however, nor indeed all of them together, can supply a sufficient guide in affairs of state"
(Messiah the Prince, p. 234).

• Christian Anarchism in a Nutshell

God created human beings in a social form we would call "Patriarchy." When Noah got off the ark with his family, all human beings existed in a state of "Patriarchy." Abraham the Patriarch had perhaps thousands of people in his family as a result of evangelism, domestic apprenticeship, job-creation, charity, and home-church. Romans 13, a much-misunderstood passage, prohibits Christians from violently resisting demonic empires, but does not condone imperial conquest and plunder of the weak by the strong.

• Romans 13: A Christian Anarchist Perspective

Jesus prohibits His followers from being "archists" (Mark 10:42-45), which logically means Christians, while orderly and peaceful at all times, are technically "an-archists."

• What is an "Archist?"
• I Am Not an ARCHIST
• How To Become a Christian Anarchist

I feel that Christians who are not Theonomists let the State off the hook.

Theonomic Oligarchy?

I agree that everyone -- civil magistrates, mafia hit-men, prostitutes -- are obligated to submit to Christ by obeying His inscriptured Word. I worry that many Theonomists envision little more than a "Theonomic Oligarchy" in which a small plurality of Theonomic voter-activists elect a slate of "Theonomic candidates" to political office to execute the unrepentant demographic. This, I guess, would be an "Amillennial Theonomy," whereas a more robust "Postmillennial Theonomy" would come closer to the Biblical vision of the knowledge of the Lord covering the earth as the waters cover the sea, resulting in widespread conversion, repentance, obedience, and cultural sanctification, rather than a more pessimillennial theocratic whack-a-mole. (I also consider myself a "Theocrat.")

First, with regard to Paul in Acts 25. An argument can be made that Paul did not "uphold the standards of the Mosaic judicial law," but rather appealed to Roman law under Caesar. This assumes that his Jewish opponents were defenders of the "Mosaic judicial law" (which they were not, as we have seen). The "Mosaic judicial law" is not an issue in Acts 25. Paul isn't approving his own execution any more than Jeremiah did:

Acts 25:11
11 For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar.

Jeremiah 26:11 Then spake the priests and the prophets unto the princes and to all the people, saying, This man is worthy to die; for he hath prophesied against this city, as ye have heard with your ears.
12 Then spake Jeremiah unto all the princes and to all the people, saying,
14 As for me, behold, I am in your hand: do with me as seemeth good and meet unto you.
15 But know ye for certain, that if ye put me to death, ye shall surely bring innocent blood upon yourselves, and upon this city, and upon the inhabitants thereof: for of a truth the Lord hath sent me unto you to speak all these words in your ears.

Bahnsen makes an assumption in Acts 25 based on another text, Romans 13. Bahnsen believes that in Romans 13, God authorizes, or even mandates, the existence of an entity we call "the State." As we said above, all human beings, and all bodies, corporations, organizations, networks, syndicates, leagues, etc., in which human beings may associate themselves, are obligated to obey all of God's Law in the Bible. This includes entities we might call "the State" or "the Mafia."

But Romans 13 is addressed to Christians in their capacity as "private" citizens. It is not a mandate for "the State." In Romans 13, Paul calls "the State" "the powers," a term which everywhere in the New Testament (and in the Greco-Roman world at the time) signified a demonic nexus of tyranny. Paul is continuing his theme in Romans 12, which is to submit to evil in a "pacifist" manner, rather than respond to evil with more evil (violent revolution, in the case of the State). Romans 13 has arguably been the most disastrously misinterpreted passage in the Bible.

Hundreds of millions of people murdered.
Billions of people enslaved.
Trillions of dollars of property confiscated or destroyed.
In the 20th century alone.

We have undertaken an analysis of Romans 13 from an anarcho-theonomic perspective here:

 www.Romans13.com

Second, is there such a thing as ""Mosaic judicial law?" Did God give Israel laws through Moses which were intended to be carried out by an entity we today call "the State?" No.

But is there in God's Law a requirement or mandate for the existence of "the State?"

Bahnsen speaks of "penalties," "punishments," and the "penal law." These phrases carry with them assumptions about the legitimacy of political institutions. (The word "political" comes from the Greek word polis.)

Even if you agree with these assumptions, anarcho-capitalists have shown how "judicial law" or "penal codes" can be more equitably, efficiently, and humanely administered by competing judicial agencies in a freed market, rather than a centralized judicial monopoly called "the State."

For the most orthodox of Theonomic reasons, I believe "capital punishment" -- a liturgical shedding of blood -- was a "ceremonial" law, and is therefore abolished. For all crimes. That might surprise many opponents of Theonomy, who assume that "Theonomy" means nothing if not the execution of homosexuals and adulterers.

This is obviously a controversial position, and requires something of a "paradigm shift."

Imagine someone who says that the abolition of animal sacrifices commanded in the Mosaic law would lead to social chaos. "Those daily sacrifices were a powerful reminder of the odiousness of sin and God's holy and righteous standards," they might say. "Abolish the daily sacrifices and society will plunge into depravity and lawlessness." Sounds like a compelling argument. But shedding animal blood is a blasphemous affront to the work of Christ on the cross.

Shedding human blood is too.

The case for "capital punishment" as a "ceremonial law" can be made in three passages:

1. Deuteronomy 21:1-9 prescribes the shedding of blood in cases of unsolved homicide. All Christians -- Theonomist and non-Theonomist alike -- agree that the shedding of blood required in cases of unsolved homicide is a "ceremonial" requirement.
   But when the homicide suspect is found, tried, and convicted, all of the sudden that ceremonial shedding of blood is called an "execution," part of the "judicial law."
2. The first recorded command for the shedding of blood is in Genesis 9:4-6. The subject is blood, not State power.
3. What we call "capital punishment" has as its central purpose atonement. Blood must be shed to make atonement, according to Numbers 35:33.

These three passages establish the "theology of capital punishment," and show it to be a ritual shedding of blood to make atonement. In our modern minds, these passages are filed under "capital punishment" and given a civil/judicial interpretation. But that's not a Biblical "theology of capital punishment." That's a secular/Roman law handling of the texts.

Other crimes which we call "capital crimes" are spoken of in the Bible in the same way as murder. For example, in Leviticus 20, it is repeatedly said of those who commit capital crimes, "their blood shall be upon them," and not upon a scapegoat or sacrificial lamb.

We are not allowed to shed blood after Calvary. Literally implementing Deuteronomy 21:1-9 would be an insult to the blood of Christ, everyone agrees. But the same holds true with Numbers 35:33. Same with Genesis 9:4-6 (and Genesis 8:20f.) We have to come up with other responses to "capital crimes" consistent with the rest of God's Law. This is, admittedly, a big assignment.

Rather than shedding blood, Theonomists should work for Christian Reconstruction in families, schools, businesses, and all other areas of life, and then blanket society with voluntary dispute resolution organizations. There is a tendency among some Theonomists to focus on executions and ignore the much larger task of social reconstruction which will ultimately diminish the number of murders and other "capital crimes." As Christians gain social influence, even the unconverted will feign Theonomic obedience and come under the market institutions and social order of a global Christocracy.

Replacing "the State" is a big job, but a necessary one.

The concept of "judicial law" in the Bible is a hold-over from Greco-Roman thinking. "Judicial law" is a concept imposed on the Bible rather than exegeted (from the text of the Bible). God did not give laws to "the State" in a way that approves of the perpetual existence of the State. (Deuteronomy 17 should not be separated from 1 Samuel 8.)

It may seem like "Theonomy" is all about politics. This should not be the case. The bulk of Bahnsen's lengthy treatise on Theonomy does not discuss politics, but only the basic concept of the abiding validity of the Old Testament generally. More specifically, the book deals with the basic objections to God's commanding us at all, which are often the "Law vs. Grace" or "Law vs. Gospel" objections. This is really the heart of most objections to Theonomy. That and executing adulterers.

Bahnsen's particular application of Theonomy to the State is not the Theonomic thesis itself, but only an "application of the thesis." Ditto for applications made by R.J. Rushdoony and Gary North. Indeed, the section in Bahnsen's book which does address politics is called "Application of the Thesis to the State" (p. 315).

Bahnsen writes in his summary volume, By This Standard: The Authority of God's Law Today,

[T]hose who agree with the foundational conclusion of [Theonomy] -- that God's Law is binding today unless Scripture reveals otherwise -- may very well disagree among themselves over particular matters in interpreting what God's law demands at this or that point, or ... may disagree over how these demands should be followed today (p. 9).

Leaders of the "Christian Reconstruction" movement have had their disagreements on the application of the Theonomic thesis. Rushdoony and North disagreed to such an extent that they weren't even talking to each other! Bahnsen disagreed with Rushdoony on several issues, as we've noted.

"Theonomy" means God has the right to command man. It does not mean "the State" does.

Summary

God created human beings in a Family. The institution of a priesthood was temporary. The creation of "the State" was an act of rebellion against God's Law. That means society should be a patriarchal (family-centered) Christocracy.

John M. Frame's Theory of the State: An Anarchist Salute -- Contains a brief overview of the "Vine & Fig Tree" vision of Anarcho-Theocracy.