Mere Theonomy

Click here to listen to an AI podcast of this article.

There is a great deal of confusion surrounding the word theonomy. For many Christians, the term immediately evokes images of a theocracy, Mosaic civil legislation, or attempts to reconstruct ancient Israel within modern society. While some advocates of theonomy have argued for stronger continuity between Mosaic judicial law and modern civil government, that is not the issue I want to address here.

By mere theonomy, I mean something much simpler: the recognition that God is the ultimate source of justice, righteousness, morality, and law. In that sense, some form of theonomy is unavoidable. Every society appeals to an ultimate standard by which it determines what is right and wrong, just and unjust. The real question is not whether a society has an ultimate authority, but what that authority is.

Any nation that rejects God as the ultimate source of law does not become neutral. It simply substitutes another authority in His place. Whether that authority is the state, the will of the people, judicial opinion, cultural consensus, or some other standard, the appeal to neutrality is ultimately an illusion. Every society has a theology of law.

This is where Christians often misunderstand the discussion. When many believers hear theonomy, they immediately think of Mosaic judicial penalties and conclude, “But we are not ancient Israel.” Of course we are not. Israel occupied a unique place in redemptive history, and the Mosaic covenant was given within a particular covenantal and historical context. Yet it does not follow that God’s law has no continuing relevance for questions of justice and morality.

The issue is not whether modern nations should simply import every Mosaic civil statute wholesale. The issue is whether God’s revealed standards remain the ultimate measure of righteousness and justice. Scripture consistently assumes they do. The biblical authors do not treat God’s law as an arbitrary collection of ancient regulations. Rather, they present it as a revelation of God’s own character, wisdom, and understanding of justice.

Even the laws modern readers often find difficult force us to ask important questions. The issue is not whether every judicial sanction transfers directly into every culture and covenantal administration. The issue is what those laws reveal about God’s understanding of holiness, authority, truth, justice, and social order. They tell us something about the character of the Lawgiver.

No one actually lives as though morality is arbitrary. We instinctively recognize that murder, theft, perjury, corruption, and exploitation are wrong. The deeper question is why they are wrong. If morality is detached from God’s character and revelation, then law ultimately becomes an expression of power. Standards change with majorities, political movements, or cultural preferences. But Scripture grounds justice in something far more stable: the character of God Himself.

This is one reason Romans 13 is so important. Paul describes civil rulers—even pagan rulers—as servants of God. Their authority is real, but it is not ultimate. It is delegated authority exercised under divine authority. Governments remain accountable to God whether they acknowledge Him or not.

This does not require the belief that modern nations must become covenantally identical to Old Covenant Israel. Romans 13 does not make that claim. It does, however, eliminate the possibility of morally neutral government. Every government enforces a vision of justice. Every government legislates morality. Every government answers to some ultimate authority.

The question is not whether a society will be governed by moral standards. The question is whose standards those will be. Mere theonomy is simply the recognition that the only non-arbitrary foundation for justice, righteousness, and law is found in God Himself.

Not because we seek to recreate ancient Israel.

But because Christ is Lord over all nations now.

~ Romans 11:33

Comments

Gregory of Nazianzus: The Trinity - Not a Collection of Elements

Gregory of Nazianzus One of the Cappadocian fathers, Gregory of Nazianzus (c.330–389), given the title, “The Theologian,” was instrumental in the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, specifically the distinct terms to describe the Persons of the Godhead (Unbegotten, eternally begotten, and procession). Gregory’s main contribution to the development of Christology was in his opposition to Apollinarius. He argued that when Adam fell, all of humanity fell in him; therefore, that fallen nature must be fully united to the Son—body, soul, and mind; ‘for the unassumed is the unhealed’. Gregory’s Doctrine of the Trinity His clearest statement on the Trinity is found in his Oration 25.15–18. Oration 25 is part of a series of sermons delivered in 380. As a gesture of gratitude, Gregory dedicates Oration 25 to Christian philosopher Maximus the Cynic, as a sort of ‘charge’ for him to push forward and remain strong in the orthodox teachings of the faith. And these sections ar...

John 17:3 – Eternal Life is Knowing God and Christ–the One, True God

John 17:1–5. “ Jesus spoke these things, looked up to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you, since you gave him authority over all people, so that he may give eternal life to everyone you have given him. This is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and the one you have sent—Jesus Christ. I have glorified you on the earth by completing the work you gave me to do. Now, Father, glorify me in your presence with that glory I had with you before the world existed .”

Gregory of Nyssa: Trinity–Not Tri-deity

Gregory, a bishop of Nyssa in 371, was part of the Cappadocian trio, and was instrumental in the development of Trinitarian orthodoxy. His theological prowess proved vital in response to the Arian and Sabellian heresies. Key to Gregory’s theology we find “an emergence of a pro-Nicene ‘grammar’ of divinity through his developed account of divine power,” [1] conceived through a nature-power-activity formulation revealed in the created order and articulated in Scripture. Understanding the Triune God in this manner afforded a conception of the Trinity that was logical and thoroughly biblical. And this letter is paradigmatic on Gregory’s account of the divine nature. (* This article was later published with Credo Magazine, titled, “ The Grammar of Divinity (On Theology). ” See link below) To Ablabius, though short, is a polemical address whereby Gregory lays out a complex argument in response to the claim that three Divine Persons equal three gods. Basically put, Ablabius (his opponent,...

St. John Chrysostom — for God is simple

Below is part of the introductory section to my exposition of John Chrysostom’s doctrine of God. I posted it because I thought it was fascinating to find such an important theologian known for avoiding (even having a disdain of) speculative theology refer to the classical doctrine of divine simplicity as common place in his thoroughly biblical doctrine of God. Toward the end I include a link to my full exposition. John Chrysostom (ca. 347–407) was the archbishop of Constantinople. Being the most prolific of all the Eastern fathers, he fought against the ecclesiastical and political leaders for their abuse of authority. He was called Chrysostom (meaning “golden-mouthed”) for his eloquent sermons. [1] This most distinguished of Greek patristic preachers excelled in spiritual and moral application in the Antiochene tradition of literal exegesis, largely disinterested, even untutored in speculative and controversial theology. [2] On the Incomprehensible Nature of G...

Athanasius: Divine Simplicity as True Existence

Early Church Father, Athanasius (c. 296–373) Bishop of Alexandria (Egypt) was a giant figure in the advancement and preservation of orthodox Christianity. He labored more than anyone to bring about the triumph of the orthodox Nicene faith over Arianism, which promoted the view that Christ, though glorious and supreme, was a created being. Athanasius’ consistent tenacity in defending the full deity of Christ spanned forty-five years over which he was exiled five times. But his efforts kept the Orthodox faith from being eclipsed by Arian cohorts. As I have been reading through his works, in preparation for a class on the essence and attributes of God, I have been paying close attention the doctrine of divine simplicity. And so, the body of this essay will be an exposition of Athanasius’ views on simplicity from his treatise Contra Gentes ( Against the Heathens ). In this treatise, Athanasius establishes Christian theism against the pantheistic philosophies that the heathens held. Panthe...

Chrysostom on Interpreting Scripture: An Example from the Great Tradition

John Chrysostom (ca. 347–407) was the archbishop of Constantinople, and the most prolific of all the Eastern fathers. He was called Chrysostom (meaning “golden mouthed”) for his eloquent sermons. [1] This most distinguished of Greek patristic preachers excelled in spiritual and moral application in the Antiochene tradition of literal exegesis, largely disinterested, even untutored in speculative and controversial theology. [2] His work, On the Incomprehensible Nature of God ( De incomp. ), [3] is a polemical and apologetical treatise, which was originally a series of homilies presented to laymen, orthodox and heterodox, who he was trying to edify and sway from error, particularly a new uprising of Arian followers, the Anomoeans. While the Arians erroneously claimed that the Son was of similar substance ( homoiousios ) with the Father, the Anomoeans held that Christ must be dissimilar and unlike ( anomoios ) God, hence the name Anomoeans. Ch...

Origen: How is the Son the Invisible Image of the Invisible God?

Early Church Father Origen of Alexandria (c. 185–c. 254), considered the “greatest theological luminary of his age,” [1] his prolific writings amassed to some six thousand works. While his exegetical contribution to the formulation of Christian doctrine greatly shaped the theology of the fourth century, he is also a controversial fellow. Nevertheless, it is important that when we read such figures writing theology in the nascent stages of the Christian Faith, we must do our best to keep them in their context—to prevent hasty anathematizing. We have the privilege of 1900 years of theological development to stand on, passed on to us through toil, tears, and even death. Anyway... I have been studying Origen’s writings, particularly his First Principles ( De Principiis) , and came across a wonderful insight that illuminated my thinking on Christ as the image of God. I am working on a doctrine of God course. Below is an excerpt from my lecture material. So, we are going to drop rig...

Bahnsen vs. Zanchi | Scriptural Law vs. Natural Law – Part 1 of 2 – Bahnsen

Introduction In the Twitter world (actually, the “X” world), Christian Nationalism is a controversial topic. Those critical of it end up putting theonomy under the crosshairs. I am a recent convert (almost a year) to postmillennialism (PM), and theonomy has a close relationship with it. The relationship is not essential ; postmillennialism does not necessarily entail theonomy, nor vice-versa (I sound like a philosopher). Before moving to a PM perspective, I had only heard negative remarks about theonomy, such as, “theonomists believe the entire Mosaic law is binding on Christians, even stoning your children.” Or “theonomists believe we should have a theocracy like OT Israel.” And that “theonomists seek to impose the kingdom of God through use of the sword, by having a state enforced religion.” Or “theonomists see America as God’s chosen nation.” Theonomy sounds intense. Theonomy sounds extreme. Theonomy sounds un-Christian. In the spring of 2023, I immersed myself ...

Piper vs. Calvin: The Role of Good Works in Salvation

In his book Future Grace , John Piper writes, “Faith alone is the instrument that unites us to Christ who is our righteousness and the ground of our justification. But the purity of life that confirms faith’s reality is also essential for final salvation , not as the ground of our right standing, but as the fruit and evidence that we are vitally united by faith to Christ who alone is the ground of our acceptance with God.” [1] His purpose in writing that statement is to “explode the great error that says . . . [y]ou get your justification by faith, and you get your sanctification by works. You start the Christian life in the power of the Spirit, you press on in the efforts of the flesh.” [2] The emphasized portion above (and other such statements) has raised critical concerns over Piper’s Reformed theology in that his words seem to veer away from orthodox Reformed teaching. These critics contend Piper teaches a two-stage justification where one is “ initially justified by grace alon...

St. Basil: Identity of Language – Ekonomia and Theologia

Below is an excerpt from my exposition of St. Basil[1], from his treatise, On the Spirit . I thought it was a helpful example of doing theology correctly—the way of the Great Tradition. He begins this work examining the heretics’ (the Arians) “use of syllables” to distort the doctrine of the Trinity. They posit that when Scripture uses prepositional phrases (i.e., syllables) speaking of the activity of God, these phrases create a subordinate ranking, which makes the Son and the Spirit of a different nature from the Father. The heresy is promoted as such: In the words of the apostle: “‘One God and Father of whom are all things, . . . and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things’ (1 Cor 8:6) ‘Whatever, then,’ he goes on, ‘is the relation of these terms to one another, such will be the relation of the natures indicated by them; and as the term ‘of whom’ is unlike the term ‘by whom,’ so is the Father unlike the Son” ( Spir . 2.4). And following this manner of thought, the differing p...

Read. Reflect. Write.

Search This Blog