Mere Theonomy

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 a rigid attempt 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 argument being made here.

But that is not what I mean by “mere theonomy.”

By mere theonomy, I mean the simple recognition that God alone is the ultimate source of justice, righteousness, morality, and law. What many Christians fail to recognize is that some form of theonomy is already intrinsic to every society’s understanding of morality, justice, and judicial application. The only real question is whether those standards are grounded in God or in the autonomous will of man.

Any society, nation, or government that rejects God as the ultimate source of law does not become neutral. It simply replaces Him with another ultimate authority.

Every nation has a theology of law.

The real question is not whether a society is theocratic, but which god functions as its highest authority. In ancient Israel, that authority was explicitly Yahweh. In modern secular states, that authority is often the autonomous state itself, the will of the people, judicial activism, ideological consensus, or evolving cultural morality. But none of those things are neutral. They are all competing claims to ultimate authority.

And this is precisely where Christians need greater clarity.

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 covenantal role in redemptive history. The Mosaic covenant, including its civil administration, was tied to that historical and covenantal context.

But that does not mean God’s law has no abiding relevance for questions of justice.

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 for all people and all nations.

Scripture repeatedly assumes they do.

Even the laws modern people find most shocking demonstrate this point. Consider laws regarding rebellious sons (Dt 21:18–21), sorcery (Ex 22:18), or various judicial penalties in Leviticus 20. Christians often recoil from these texts because they assume the only possible approach is a strict one-to-one implementation in modern society. But that misunderstands the nature of biblical law itself.

The question is not whether every judicial sanction transfers identically into every culture and covenantal administration. The question is what moral principles these laws reveal about God’s understanding of justice, order, holiness, authority, truth, and societal corruption.

No one actually lives as though morality is arbitrary.

We all instinctively know certain things are inherently evil: murder, theft, perjury, exploitation, corruption, and injustice. But apart from God, on what basis can any society declare those things objectively wrong? If morality is untethered from God’s character and revelation, then law ultimately becomes the arbitrary expression of power. The state simply declares what is right and wrong according to prevailing consensus or political force.

But Scripture presents a radically different foundation.

God’s law reveals God’s character. His standards define righteousness. His justice establishes the true measure of equity and evil. This is why Christians should not be embarrassed to say that all human governments remain accountable to God whether they acknowledge Him or not.

Romans 13 is crucial here.

Paul describes civil rulers — even pagan rulers — as “God’s servants.” That means magistrates are not autonomous. Their authority is delegated, not ultimate. They are accountable to God for how they wield power. And when governments reward evil and punish righteousness, Christians have every right to call rulers to repentance because rulers themselves stand under divine authority.

This does not require the belief that every nation must formally become a covenantally Christian state identical to Old Covenant Israel. Romans 13 does not make that claim. But it does mean there is no such thing as morally neutral government.

Every government legislates morality.

Every government enforces a vision of justice.

Every government answers to some ultimate authority.

It is not a matter of what morality, but which morality. Mere theonomy simply insists that the only stable and non-arbitrary foundation for justice is the law and character of God Himself.

The more Christians recover that truth, the better equipped they will be to think clearly about justice, righteousness, political authority, moral accountability, and the responsibility of rulers before God.

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,...

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...

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...

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...

Isaiah 45:7 - “ . . . I make peace, and create evil.” — Does God create evil?

My daughter watched a video this morning where a deconstructionist, an ex vangelical, was attempting to profane the goodness of God, by pointing out that Isaiah 45:7 says God creates evil. She was referring to the KJV version of this passage which says, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” So, what do we do with that? Below is a brief response. Proper biblical interpretation considers context when seeking the meaning of a passage. Furthermore, when it comes to difficult or obscure passages, a helpful rule of interpretation is to look to the plainer passages of the Bible and draw examples from them to shed light on the more obscure passages ( thanks Augustine ). We let Scripture interpret Scripture. The point is to remove all hesitation on doubtful passages. So, in this passage, on the face it seems to imply that God creates evil, thus making God evil. But is that what the Bible teaches about God? The plainer passages te...

Clement of Alexandria: Nuances of the Classical God

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–c. 215) was the head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria (c. 190), and the teacher of Origen. Concerned that Christianity is not seen as an unsophisticated religion, Clement sought to reconcile his faith with the best of Greek philosophy, specifically in the usefulness of Middle Platonism.[1] He believed that the kernels of truth found in Plato and Greek Philosophy were preparatory for the Gentiles in leading them to Christ, just as the Law was a guide or guardian for the Hebrews. Clement’s esoteric exegesis and speculative theology emphasized a higher knowledge, but this knowledge was obtained only through the Logos.

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...

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 ...

Read. Reflect. Write.

Search This Blog