Customer Reviews

Theonomy in Christian Ethics

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Greg Bahnsen in this work offers the world a comprehensive hermeneutical lens by which all of life is to be viewed -- viz. God's Law.
Bahnsen begins with a masterful exegesis of Matthew 5:17-20 and the following reproof of the Pharisees which lays the foundation for his thesis. Bahnsen does such a thorough job of refuting the competing views that, I must say, Mr. Cunningham (the reviewer above) has an impossible task before him (i.e., to refute Bahnsen).
Bahnsen cogently presents Theonomy as a foundation to Christian thought which one cannot do without if the Christian community is to be faithful to the Word of God.
He proposes that not only is the Christian to bow before the Law of God in all of life, but that ALL MEN in every realm are expected to conform to God's Law. This includes even the civil magistrate, which should rule society according to the eternal bar line of the Law's justice.
He furthermore recoils at any Church/State union, but shows that Church and State alike have only one standard: God's Law. Thus, there should be a sort of checks and balances between the two administrations -- the Church holding the State accountable to rule according to the Law, and the State protecting the rights of the Church, while making sure the Church does not exceed its rights in society (e.g., by administering capital punishment, etc.).
There has been much misunderstanding and controversy especially over Bahnsen's (and Theonomy's) proposal that the Law's penal sanctions should likewise be administered, which would basically amount to capital punishment for adultery, rape, homosexuality, abortion, and other crimes. Many have seen this as an element of an all too harsh OT ethic. However, if that be the case (that the OT penal sanctions are too harsh), then that would be tantamount to saying 2 very astounding things:
(1) God's morality changes
(2) God's perfect Law (Ps. 19) is not perfect, since it is not truly just.
This is unreasonable and impugns the integrity and righteous character of God. To be faithful to God's Law for society, the civil magistrate must rule according to God's Law in every jot and tittle.

I could go on and on recommending Bahnsen's book, but suffice it to say that EVERY Christian should read this book to understand how God's Law should apply to his/her life.
A MUST READ!!!

This book coupled with R.J. Rushdoony's "Institutes of Biblical Law," will become to the 20th century what Calvin's "Institutes" became to the 16th. This book will not go away nor will the subject. It is vital to Christian progress.

If Bahnsen's discussion of the Greek term for "fulfil" in Matthew 5 is really the weakest part of the book, then we have before us an outstanding work of ethics and exegesis. The fact is, an alternative exegesis of Matthew 5 might be correct, and yet Bahnsen's Thesis would still stand. I'm currently preparing a Master's thesis in theology on the topic of the role of biblical law in contemporary government, and I have to say that despite my very best efforts, I have yet to come across a rebuttal to this work that stands up to serious scrutiny, Poythress and Co. included.

This work, if allowed to speak, and if read without trying to think up rebuttals before fair examination has been given, will change the way you look at biblical law. For many Christians, Bahnsen has been responsible for a truly overwhelming paradigm shift.

Fortunately, this work has been republished by Covenant Media Foundation (I can't include the URL here, but they're easy to find on the web). See for yourself what the fuss is about!

Dr. Bahnsen was on of this nations most articulate exegetes and ethicists the evangelical church has produced. This book is a wake up call to evangelicals who have surrendered Biblical law to "common grace" or Thomistic natural law. In the wake of this lifting up of the white flag Bahnsen blows a loud horn to wake us up to the cultural disatser this has resulted in.

Dr. Bahnsen demonstrates an ability to convey Scriptural truth in such a way that touches the one heart of all true Christians. He is humble and bold at the same time. The transitions between points of argumentation are so fluid you will be left with no doubt that theonomy could have articulated any better. If you do not agree with this thesis of Dr. Bahnsen's you can rest assured you are not a theonomist.

(Timmopussycat is the online nic of Tim Cunningham who earned a Diploma in Christian Studies from Regent College, Vancouver, BC. He is currently working on a full exegetical review of Bahnsen's view of Matthew 5:17-20.)

Theonomy derives from two Greek words meaning God and law respectively. Greg Bahnsen's version of Christian ethics stands or falls on whether his understanding of Matthew 5:17-20, given in the chapter "The Abiding Validity of the Law in Exhaustive Detail" is correct. While Bahnsen presents his thesis in a way that at first glance looks highly convincing, it has been demonstrated that he is incorrect at so many points that his thesis cannot stand.

Unfortunately Bahnsen's mistakes are not immediately obvious to those of us who are unfamilliar with Greek grammar and word meanings. An additional problem is that many of the folks who do know Greek have made their counterarguments to Bahnsen's position in theological journals or unpublished academic papers such as Masters theses which layfolk do not normally run across. One key work, however, is still available to the general public and those considering buying "Theonomy" owe it to themselves to buy and read Vern S. Poythress' book "The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses" before accepting Bahnsen's thesis.

To give but one example of what is involved, Bahnsen claims that the Greek word our Bibles normally translate "fulfill" in Matt. 5:17 should instead be translated "confirm"-a meaning for the word not found in classical Greek and not generally accepted as valid for New Testament Greek. Poythress in his chapter "The meaning of plaroo" reviews the evidence for Bahnsen's suggestion and, while not deploying the strongest arguments against it, deploys enough to conclude that Bahnsen's suggested translation must be rejected.

(Lest any believe the oft made but incorrect claim that Bahnsen refuted Poythress' arguments on this point in his later book "No Other Standard," the truth is that Bahnsen refuted none of the arguments: he didn't even discuss them in any detail. Instead he attempted to dismiss them as "quibbles," which, as anyone familliar with Poythress' arguments knows, is simply untrue. Similarly, Bahnsen's counterclaim that the main lexicon for New Testament Greek accepts "confirm" as a valid translation of the word in question overlooks the fact that the mention of "confirm" occurs within bracets - a convention which the authors of that lexicon use to reference a meaning about which there is ongoing debate, but which they themselves do not accept as valid.)

If Theonomy is Biblical teaching, it will need better Scriptural support than Bahnsen deploys to prove it.

This represents probably the best defense of theonomy in print [sic]. If you desire to understand this position, then somehow find this book.

Bahnsen says "it is the point of slightness that Jesus bring forcefully before us, not even the very least extensive number of the very least significant aspect of the old testament law will become invalid until heaven and earth pass away, it is hard to imagine how Jesus could have more intensely affirmed that every bit of the old law remains binding in the gospel age." The main verse used by theonomists is Matthew 5:17-18 where Jesus says, "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18"For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." The problem for Bahnsen and the partial preterist (and futurists) is that the "heaven and earth" of 2 Peter 3 passed away in 70AD (which many partial preterists agree with, see Isaiah 51:15-16). In this book he lists the 5 rules of theonomy.

1) The Christian is morally obligated to observed every jot and tittle of the Old Testament law, to disobey any point is to validate the whole law. (He cites James 2:10 which reads "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.")
2) There's a system or set or ceremonial laws.
3) The observation of this system of redemptive ceremonies was intended to be superceded, it was a foreshadow of Christ's saving economy and has become obsolete with His historical work.
4) The continued observation of this system of shadows is to miss the true importance; it is opposed to Christian faith and evidences condemning bondage. (which means no more sacrifices are to be made)
5) In order to walk righteously before our God, we must identify and distinguish between ceremonial observances from moral observances.

Another theonomist writes, "We must observe all the ethical and moral principals of the old testament law." I agree with that and I know you do too. God has given us a conscience to know that lying, adultery, stealing, etc. is wrong." But the problem is that the theonomist goes farther then that. Bahnsen says that "every bit of the old law remains binding in the gospel age", that includes the jots and tittles. Bahnsen writes on page 73 and 74 that "jot and tittle are not broad, vague principals". He is right. Jots and tittles are every tiny Pharisaical, legalist detail! If theonomy is true then the entire Christian church has been disobeying God's law for almost 2000 years! It means that the Old Testament ceremony laws, dietary laws, etc. are still in effect! This is absurd! The way Bahnsen gets away with this is that he cites but doesn't quote Hebrews 8:13 in this book.

Hebrews 8:13 says "In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."
But Bahnsen writes on page 194 from Theonomy in Christian Ethics "Hebrew 8:13 says that the old age is past but the age of the Son is here to stay (Heb 8:13)."
That is a true statement now and anytime after the Old Covenant passed away, which was in 70AD. But this is not what the verse says. The verse says it was passing away. On page 209 Bahnsen writes, "the Old Covenant has disappeared (Heb 8:13)" This is now true after 70AD but when the verse was written, which was before 70AD, it says it was disappearing. It hadn't disappeared yet. I'm sure this whole false view about the law has caused many Christian Reconstructionists to doubt their salvation.
God's only current law in the Christian age is the "law of the Spirit of life" and the "ministry of the Spirit". (Romans 8:2, 2 Cor 3:8).